Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: This is Your President

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 21, 2012, 11:40 p.m. EST by riethc (1149)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

President Obama seems to think we are going to get out of this economic recession/depression through tourism!

Obama: On Thursday I Went to Disney World!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-vxdeGOp2E

He also tries to win over voters by singing?

President Obama Sings Al Green Let's Stay Together: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f42oM07xvDc

Obama is impeachable under the Constitution for being incapable to "discharge the powers of the presidency" (ie. do his job). It's only a matter of Americans having the guts to impeach under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Article 25: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment25/

Remember, Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

85 Comments

85 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Can you at least use better justifications against Obama? Disney World? Really? That's the best you got?

Obama is a fraud!!!

Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. "The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/barack-obama-out-of-the-c_b_813027.html

He supported the bailouts of a fraudulent financial system that is extracting wealth from our country and stealing people's pensions and homes. The bailout money was used by the federal reserve to create 7.7 trillion dollars out of thin air for their own private interest, and Obama has yet to do anything about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BXPINPwp4w

Obama's new campaign guy his a Wall Street lobbyist

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/obama-defies-base-hires-wall-street-lobbyist-for-re-election-campaign/#ixzz1cQ6oOt4U

"Is this the United States congress, or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs?"-Dennis Kucinich

The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It's a private for profit bank ran by frauds. Its a Ponzi scheme where they issue debt created from thin air and then they STEAL your tax money and put it in their wallets and their cronies' pockets. You know those trillions of dollars in government debt? Who do you think pays the interest on it?!?! WE DO! The Federal Reserve has no accountability and create trillions of dollars out of thin air for their own private interests all the while devaluing our US dollar. You don't see Obama trying to correct this fraudulent system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YimTs6Q_xD0

He's bombed more countries than Bush. Countries like Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan... etc

He extended the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

He never actually closed guantanamo bay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html

He lied about ending the wars in Iraq and the current withdrawal was scheduled by the Bush administration. And there is a billion dollar military base in Iraq and I guarantee you that it aint empty. The departure from Iraq was required by the 2008 Iraq-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement signed by Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and then-President George W. Bush and approved by the Iraqi parliament, giving it the status of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTYL8HfCGo

Obama also turned his back on whistle blowers even though before his presidency he said they should be praised. A good man in the NSA named Thomas Drake spoke out against a system in the NSA that violates the 4th amendment as well as also speaking out against fraudulent acts, wasted funds, and more... and Obama supported Drake to be imprisoned.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Obama also supported the patriot act, which essentially deletes the 4th amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqXmQYHV-1I

He's started unconstitutional acts of war against Libya, which he spoke out against when Bush did that to Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVo7-gOkqo

Obama signed for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial into law under provisions of the NDAA and "designates the world as the battlefield and that includes the homeland." -quote senator Lindsey Graham who supported the bill and argued in it's favor.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/

“This bill [the NDAA] authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. It gives the president unchecked power to pursue war. It diminishes the role of this Congress. The founders saw Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which places in the hands of Congress the war power, as essential to a check and balance against the executive abuse of power. This legislation diminishes Congress' role in that regard.” - Dennis Kucinich

In reference to the passing of the new NDAA the Armed Services Committee released this,"the threats posed by al Qaeda cells in Yemen and Africa underscore the evolving and continuing nature of the terrorist threat to the United States. The Conference Report ensures the United States will have the ability to meet this threat and neutralize terrorists from these groups and conduct effective interrogations." More war for Obama!

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=23d194d7-78c9-4c57-b2d9-31bc3bb7daeb

List of terrorist organizations our country could start war with and the countries they're in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations

"This [the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011] designates the WORLD as the battlefield... and that includes the homeland."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFygkHgi34

Next stop Africa and Yemen!!! Maybe Iran or Syria next? Fulfill that cold war with some Operation Northwoods and go to war with Russia? Who knows? It's the government. It's a threat to national security to tell you the truth all the time.Maybe China a few years from now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-heads-to-asia-with-sharp-focus-on-chinas-growing-power/2011/11/10/gIQAOsQkBN_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obama-us-to-send-250-marines-to-australia-in-2012/2011/11/16/gIQAO4AQQN_blog.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

“We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.” -Cass R Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration.

Oh and don't forget about this Hour long presentation in congress about Al Qaeda members being the Libyan rebels, as well as extremists, rapists, and murderers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G0pUEU603Q&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=42&feature=plpp_video

In case any of you don't like the first video because it's a republican here is super Liberal Dennis Kucinich railing against Al Qaeda in the rebels as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUnluGSOdM&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=43&feature=plpp_video

And here is an article on the Libyan rebel leader admitting to having a bunch of Al Qaeda members in his "rebellion" which is actually just terrorism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

And to all the remaining Obama fans, can't you guys just admit that Obama is a shitty president? Of course the republicans suck a lot and yes McCain Palin would have been worse but the shittyness of the republicans doesn't make Obama a good president.

It's really sad that most "democrats" just say "well Republicans are worse" when it comes to these issues. That's not the way to go about these problems we see in our country. Something actually needs to be done about both parties acting outside of the law and bankrupting the nation. Saying "well, republicans are worse" doesn't solve the problem.

Obama works harder for Wall Street and the military industrial complex than he does for main street.

4 more years of Bush's war on terror! - Obama 2012

[-] 2 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Of course, I agree with you. This post is about his sanity rather than his policies, which makes him fall under impeachment by the 25th amendment. This is simply another means by which impeachment can be initiated. The Vice President and "a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department" can do so. Read the 25th amendment.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

He should be impeached for the unconstitutional act of aggressive war with Libya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YZrQz4hW-k

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

That would take Congress. What I'm talking about with this post is by way of high ranking officials in the Executive Branch and the Vice President.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1152) 2 years ago

I think not allowing americans to apply for HAMP until they were behind on their mortgages, as tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of homeowners have claimed, could be grounds for an impeachment, except that republican politicians were probably impressed by that shenanigan.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26677) 2 years ago

I missed it.

Was his singing that bad?

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

sounds like a Cato question to me, you Rush listener, you Heritage think tankers, you snooz

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

He realised early in his time that he's a whipping boy.

Why not play lots of golf once you realise that you don't have anything to do? Bush 2 did the same. When he wasn't at Camp David.

[-] -1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

I don't buy that narrative.

[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Why would you? Your bias is obvious from the OP.

Remember that the former admin took the country to war on an illegal premise, killing thousands of Americans, and injuring tens of thousands more. During that time, the Pentagon "lost" over two trillion dollars.

[-] 2 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Assuming I like Bush because I dislike Obama is very stupid.

Obama has went even further than Bush did: Look at the NDAA. (Indefinite detention of US citizens.) Look at Libya. (He didn't even bother asking Congress for use of our military, aka. war.)

Obama is Bush's 3rd term.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Then accept that the system is corrupt to the core, and that there is absolutely no difference politically or legally between dems and rupubs.

Like I've been saying online for over a decade, where are the independents to keep the major parties honest?

Oh, and if you look at the current candidates, if that is the best of the best amongst 300 million people, then god really does need to save America.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

WE need to save America.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

And the way to do that is?

Get the money out of politics.

Get rid of corporate personhood.

Reinstate Glass-Steagal.

Prosecute fraudulent banksters.

Create at least one new political party to rival the current corruption.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Man, how clear it seems when you hear it from the sane. Now, if we could all just get behind sanity there wouldn't be a problem. But sanity has been in short supply in America for some time now.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Sounds like a great plan to me. We can do it, with God's help.

[-] 2 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Not all Democrats and Republicans are bad people. The few that recently have gotten to be president or lead their parties have been bad though. I would like to see patriotic politicians/statesmen do the right thing regardless of party. We have a handful, we need more.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

There's probably way more than a handful, but once they see that to actually make it to the top, they have to accept bribes, and eventually succumb to the blackmail aspect that is part and parcel of accepting a bribe, their smiles are faked, and their loyalties are divided.

There's so much money involved, only the corrupt or corruptible make it in today's political battles.

[-] 2 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

People need to start acting on principle again in society as a whole. We can't expect much of our politicians if we keep behaving like animals.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I think its the other way around. The politicians are supposed to be our leaders, and so are those heading up our churches. What do we get from them? Coverups of serious criminal activity, acceptance of monetary incentives (bribes), outright lies about their own activities, debauchery, insider trading, lying to lawmakers, buying the legal system.

You think they are going to change because the people change?

They are supposed to be our rocks, our examples, not the other way around.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

We share a common culture, and as it goes corrupt, so do we all.

Individuals can stand up against this cultural degeneracy and change it, but they must muster the courage and imagination to do so.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Not so sure you share a common culture with those at the top of the tree at all.

Unless you regularly receive gifts of money, cars, holidays, and various priveliges in return for political favour.

The air is pretty rarified up where Congress and the upper echelon of the major churches live.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

I read your other posts. I think you know what policy changes we need. If Obama was impeached, we could get a FDR-type candidate on the Dem ticket. From there, we'd have to get a decent Congress, but it's plausible. People during the FDR-era did it. So can we.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I wish you luck.

I just react to the Dem/Repub thing, simply because I believe that it's a "divide and conquer" issue only.

I'm not usually reactionary, but it does the #ows cause zero good to be wasting time on left/right sqaubbles.

Clearly both camps are tarred with the same brush these days.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

This is totally off-topic, but I just wanted to express once again my real sorrow at the loss of Heath Ledger. He was the best film actor since Brando (at least aside from the unbelievable numbers of great actors the British produce). I was looking forward to a lot of great performances from him. What a tragedy.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Funny you should mention Heath.

I would express the same kind of grief about Brandon Lee.

In that genre, both excelled. Some of Heath's earlier works I wasn't so impressed tho.

Might have been the minimal budgets, crummy direction. Who knows?

Don't forget Agent Smith. He's one of my faves.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You are misinformed about NDAA. It expressly exempts US citizens from indefinite military detention. (Article 1031, if I'm not mistaken.)

You are also misinformed about Libya. He consulted with congressional leaders prior to and throughout our involvement, and did not break the 60 day rule.

I agree that he is essentially a conservative, and WAY too much in the pockets of the banks. I personally feel betrayed by him on many levels. But that doesn't mean he authorized detaining citizens in the NDAA, nor did he violate the Constitution regarding Libya. For your accusations to have more resonance and legitimacy, they should be accurate.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

There was a proposed amendment to exempt US citizens from its provisions, but the amendment was rejected. So NDAA does apply to US citizens.

Pursuant to the AUMF passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."[18] An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Requirement_for_military_custody:_Section_1022

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No, there was a second amendment that went through. I posted it a couple of time on these fora.

The transfer language has specifically to do with Gitmo. The Republicans wanted to make it impossible for the prisoners to be transferred, keeping Gitmo open and active in perpetuity. At Obama's insistence, that language was changed to permit those transfers.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

There is no such provision (exempting US citizens from its reach), maybe you're referring to the Presidential signing statement (or some of the arguments made by legal scholars, averring detention of a US citizen would require compliance with the Constitution, but this is a yet to be tested legal theory)?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

I agree that the language is too fuzzy, but this and two provisions in article 1031 (if I remember correctly) clearly point to the intent to exempt US citizens,

Personally, I would have vetoed the legislation, even though it faced a certain override in Congress. (I think it passed the Senate with 93 votes!) Still, for symbolic reasons alone.

Actually, I take that last bit back. I think he signed it in its current form as a result of negotiations surrounding Gitmo. He would not have gotten those provisions if he did not agree to sign the law.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

That would be 1021(e) ... here's a link to the text of the bill that was signed into law:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

The provision is on page 265, however, it specifically relates to US citizens who are "captured or arrested in the United States" (so a US citizen captured anywhere outside of US soil, could be subjected to this law). Therefore, under these conditions, it can be applied against US citizens.

Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge this is very unlikely to happen in practice (unless a US citizen is captured somewhere like Afghanistan or Yemen), and even if a US citizen was captured and transferred to Guantanamo, past Supreme Court decisions suggest he or she would retain habeas corpus rights. Nonetheless, the law as written, does authorize the detention of US citizens.

I think what you're saying is the average American shouldn't sit around seriously entertaining the idea that the Army could kick down their door and ship them off to Guantanamo, and of course I agree :)

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Under those conditions, overseas, yes. But again, there are reasons for that that may not be obvious on first reading. If a US citizen is actively engaged in, say, shooting at American soldiers in Afghanistan, disallowing him to detained by the military is unworkable. Is that a likely scenario? doubtful. And could the language have spelled out more specifically under what conditions the military could detain an citizen abroad? Absolutely. (Although I do seem to remember the other provisions exempting Americans overseas as well, by virtue of language disallowing any action against them to be in violation of the Constitution, but I'll have to re-check that.)

Regardless, there has been a great deal of exaggeration and hyperbole about this legislation that is, in my view, unwarranted. It goes without saying that it is a very bad piece of legislation on the whole, but it is virtually the same as the NDAA of the preceding year, and the year before that, and so on, going back to the Patriot Act. It's the whole deal that's bad, not this specific law. And it is Congress that is currently driving it. I frankly don't know what Obama's choices are regarding this. It looks to me like he's pretty well boxed in.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I sort of agree that Obama was cornered into this (for a variety of reasons), and it is a continuation of Bush administration policies. I do have a scintilla of hope that he won't sign a NDAA 2013 that includes this provision. It's all well and good to say the Army can't deal with someone shooting at them on a foreign battlefield in accordance with due process, the sixth amendment, and so on, but much more clarification is needed in the law.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"...much more clarification is needed in the law."

Absolutely.

But I'm not hopeful much clarification will happen in the near future (for a variety of reasons).

Right now, though, I need some sleep. Maybe we can pick up on this further tomorrow.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

There are other laws that would provide for "some" protections, even if an American is captured on a battlefield. Army regulation itself is fairly detailed and rigid (and while there's been abuses, we should understand that maybe a few dozen soldiers have been implicated in abuses over the course of the last decade, while hundreds of thousands of soldiers have deployed in and out of theater, and performed in accordance with the highest standards of conduct).

There's also international law, treaties, etc. None of this (including the fact that the law cannot be applied against a US citizen if arrested or captured on US soil) provides cover for the administration or congress. This provision of NDAA is terribly drafted legislation, and war is no excuse for weakening our commitment to human rights. We can certainly do much better.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Read it:

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

Now, check out section (e) again.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

That exempts US citizens.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

An interesting article. Thanks.

Right now, I'm exhausted and simply can't give it the attention it deserves. (Need some sleep)

I'll try to get back to you tomorrow about my impressions.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Thanks. Have a good night. :)

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Once you stop getting your information from whitehouse.gov we can start a real conversation.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I had a feeling you would go on the attack.

Did you miss the part where I said i felt betrayed by Obama?

I am not arguing with your general take on the guy, but only the facts you present to support them. Those facts are mistaken.

There is PLENTY to dislike about this president. There is no need to stretch facts to do it, and doing so undermines your cause. So step back, take a deep breath: we are on the same side.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

"I am not arguing with your general take on the guy, but only the facts you present to support them. Those facts are mistaken."

Check out the section for yourself. It's codified in the law.

"I had a feeling you would go on the attack."

Criticizing your web habits is not that bad, is it?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

WHy are you still attacking? Did I not make myself clear? I am on your side, but don't agree with two of your facts. I did not call you stupid, but misinformed. I am misinformed often. I'm grateful when I receive more accurate information.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Jeez, grow some skin. I'm not even trying to be mean.

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Actually, there's significant controversy among historians regarding Nero's association with the fire of Rome (but I digress). Nevertheless, Obama isn't as bad as Bush, isn't as bad as any of the republican candidates would be, but like virtually every other politician in the United States, he's a corporate tool. We won't change this dynamic through placing hope in our current political system (anyone who thinks that is smoking some shit I'd like to try one of these days). We need the sort of paradigm shift that can only happen after years, probably decades, of ground up action by those of us who give a shit (like many of the people here). However, it's worth noting that if the people scream loud enough, there's enough people on the streets, we gain enough support, and we don't go away, we can change some things.

We need to do both, keep working towards long term goals (like participatory democracy and greater democracy in the workplace), and short term goals (like political reform, financial regulatory reform, trade reform, etc.). The latter are acute problems, and we ignore them at our peril.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

"Actually, there's significant controversy among historians regarding Nero's association with the fire of Rome (but I digress)"

Whoever started the fire, Nero didn't do anything about it.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

According to Tacitus, the Nero playing his lyre story was only a rumor (and only one other Roman historian, Pliny the Elder, wrote about the fire, but only briefly).

According to Tacitus, upon hearing news of the fire, Nero rushed back to Rome to organize a relief effort, which he paid for from his own funds.[7] After the fire, Nero opened his palaces to provide shelter for the homeless, and arranged for food supplies to be delivered in order to prevent starvation among the survivors.[7] In the wake of the fire, he made a new urban development plan. Houses after the fire were spaced out, built in brick, and faced by porticos on wide roads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Was Tacitus on Nero's payroll?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I mean seriously, Tacitus is the ONLY detailed source we have on the fire of Rome, the playing his fiddle story was "always" a rumor, these facts have "always" been known by historians, and the playing his fiddle story was never historically accurate (it's one of those things that just became a popular legend over time ... even though historians have always known it was just a rumor, Tacitus is perhaps the most respected of all Roman historians, maybe all the historians from antiquity, and ... the fucking end).

It wasn't even a damn fiddle anyway ...

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

"It wasn't even a damn fiddle anyway ..."

He "fiddled" while Rome burned. I think you need to get the double meaning there.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Well, it's an analogy. Nero was a lyre player/performer. He had many political enemies in Rome and he built his new palace on the ruins of the fire, so there is plenty of motive. He also felt the need to blame the fire on a scapegoat, ie. Christians.

I don't know how reliable Tacitus is since he wrote for three emperors. He probably wrote with their opinions of his work in mind.

But I'm not a Roman scholar, that's just what I think.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I mean, Tacitus is a fairly reliable source (he's among the best sources we have for ancient Roman history). Doesn't mean that Nero didn't lose it towards the end ... but ancient Roman government was, shall we say, dysfunctional (and it's leaders were quite often narcissistic megalomaniacs).

Think about it, ancient Rome was a place that distrusted leaders who didn't like to fuck young boys (and only liked women) .... this IS in fact true (so I'm certainly not defending ancient Roman government), it was a very very weird place.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

My, how much we've evolved since then........

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

The Catholic Church has kept the tradition going pretty hardily. Another story from Rome, Pope Leo X, the guy Martin Luther rebelled against, used to have parties, where out of a giant cake would emerge a bunch of young boys (you can fill in the rest).

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Yes, the Lutherans have a school system in Australia to rival the Catholics.

Very popular, and not just with protestants. Haven't heard a whisper about paedophilia either.

I was Uniting church, and there wasn't much of a deviant factor there, from memory. No vow of chastity to screw up a man's development.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I'm a member of the best church on earth, NO church :)

Anyway, I probably shouldn't talk smack about religion (I respect all views, assuming of course they're not homicidal). I realize most Catholics and Protestants are only religious on Christmas, well, except black Friday, when they're stampeding to buy shit like DVR players and ipads (I have both Catholic & Protestant in my family background, and I like me some Christmas, I'm just not really religious ... and I never understood the black Friday mania).

[-] 1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"narcissistic megalomaniac"

Now that's a perfect description of Barack Hussein Obama.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

"Doesn't mean that Nero didn't lose it towards the end ... but ancient Roman government was, shall we say, dysfunctional (and it's leaders were quite often narcissistic megalomaniacs)"

Yes, that's really where I'm trying to make the analogy.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

I'm just going to copy/paste something here. I'm getting tired.

Obama has went even further than Bush did: Look at the NDAA. (Indefinite detention of US citizens.) Look at Libya. (He didn't even bother asking Congress for use of our military, aka. war.)

Obama is Bush's 3rd term.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

When I was in law school I did a research paper on this issue. Bush did in fact detain a US citizen under a similar provision (Jose Padilla).

I suppose we could say that Obama assassinated a US citizen, but he didn't use the indefinite detention provision of the newly enacted NDAA to do it (NDAA 2011 wasn't signed into law yet). Nonetheless, in many respects I agree with you, Obama has continued many Bush policies.

But this is what we can expect from all these guys. Republicans are I think worse, but not much worse. Democrats may fleece our country more slowly, but the differences between the two are slight, and they're both in the pockets of big corporate interests.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Three things: (1) Obama's administration made it possible to indefinitely detain US citizens with this bill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ARkiJM2bA, (2) Obama decided to sign it on New Years Eve, when no one was paying attention, and (3) the mainstream media has been complicit in ignoring the matter almost completely

What's going on here?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Again, this doesn't represent a change from Bush administration policy, but of course you're absolutely right, we should be extremely disappointed in President Obama (and his refusal to roll back the excesses of the Bush administration).

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

We should be concerned about a coup. All Obama needs is an excuse now.

Deadly Spark: What can trigger US-Iran war?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTOIeqFHFR0

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Actually, the detention provision in NDAA is very specific. It explicitly applies to "only" Al Qaeda and its affiliates (so it couldn't even be used to detain a Timothy McVeigh type). Unless the US citizen at issue is an affiliate of Al Qaeda, he or she cannot be detained under this provision (and the military has no jurisdiction, it remains within the exclusive purview of law enforcement).

This doesn't mean it's not a terrible law, but we shouldn't freak out either (this is no different than the authority Bush had and aggressively used). I want to repeat, I'm not defending this law in any way, I'm just explaining what it actually says.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

"It explicitly applies to 'only' Al Qaeda and its affiliates (so it couldn't even be used to detain a Timothy McVeigh type)"

The wording covers "belligerent acts" as well, leaving the qualifier "belligerent" open to interpretation. But besides that, if you don't get a trial, who's to say you aren't a part of Al Qaeda?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Right, but the "acts" at issue have to be committed by someone who has an alleged connection with Al Qaeda (in furtherance of that relationship, and basically doing Al Qaeda's bidding), but your point is exactly right, without trial (or any of the normal rights we grant those accused of a crime), how can we know whether or not the person in custody is in fact affiliated with Al Qaeda.

This law is an assault against our liberties and Constitution (and I'm certainly not disputing that).

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

What are you disputing?

Let's just get creative here, if I were President Obama and I made sure indefinite detainment was encoded in the yearly National Defense Authorization Act, doesn't that mean I wanted it there? Why would I want it there?

Then you can take the next step.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I mean, as I've said repeatedly, I'm totally opposed to this law, just as I was when Bush was in office. Of course where were all these suddenly concerned conservatives when Bush did the same thing?

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

I'm not a conservative, if that's what you're thinking.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yeah, can't imagine how tourism could generate revenue, can you? What a weird idea! I mean, how could anybody be so stupid as to think that people spending money could create jobs? What a weirdo!

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Two things: (1) the recession/depression is global, and (2) the kind of work that is created by tourism is mainly for teenagers and the uneducated.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Both of those facts are the result of having been sold-out by the neo-cons (God, I love that term meaning I suppose "new con artist") for the last 30 years.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Australia's dollar is currently so strong against both the US dollar and the UK pound stirling, that Aussies are holidaying abroad more than they are staying at home.

It's also cheaper for me to buy cordless power tools straight out of America than right here at home.

Oh, and I forgot to say, we missed the GFC in 2008, due to China buying so many resources off us. Luckily, this is still the case, so our economy is very strong.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

A country doing "well" in a global recession doesn't mean that the country is not in a recession itself.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

We have what is called a "two-speed economy". Some are making 4 grand a week, and some can't afford to rent a house where they grew up.

What is odd, is that many of the mining companies over here are American-owned, but where does their profit go? Are they paying their fair share of taxes back home?

It would appear that through various hedge-funds companies can make a lot of money, without employing US citizens, and pay very little in tax. Sometimes even getting money from the treasury for whatever strange reason.

Flawed system is what I'm seeing. A government now owned by the largest corporations in the world. A military that is being directed by the richest westerners in the world.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

This is "Free Trade" at work.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Yes. The corruption extends to corrupting the language itself.

Lingua franca

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

holy crap. only a lunatic or half-wit would get up there and try to sing like the Reverend Al Green. That long-legged mack daddy O is a complete nitwit.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

And you are a transparent racist.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

not true. e.g., I love Rev. Al Green and Rev Manning

[-] -3 points by ssjkakkarotx (-77) 2 years ago

He's a damn fool. Damn near everything he has done has been a complete joke.

[-] 1 points by DiMasciosBridge (170) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Yeah, and the biggest joke always brings about the greatest cheer.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Very apt statement there.