Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Obama Presidency
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedObama Presidency
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1819202122>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2009 at 12:34
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


I know there isn't much we'll agree on but I can tell you have the same passion for political issues that I do.

I wouldn't call mine a "passion for political issues." It's rather a disgust with the state of political affairs of the last 15 years. See, we differ here tooTongueTongueTongue

Well then, sir, I do actually share your disgust. Big smile Dead
Wait a second, 15 years only takes us back to, '94, mine goes back much further...


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 28 2009 at 17:34
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2009 at 08:19
Quote
Executive Order -- Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Ethics Pledge.  Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2009, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:

"As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in a position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:

"1.  Lobbyist Gift Ban.  I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.

"2.  Revolving Door Ban    All Appointees Entering Government.  I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.

"3.  Revolving Door Ban    Lobbyists Entering Government.  If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:

(a)  participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment; 
 
 
 
All this Ethics Commitments crap is  fine and dandy but why only for 2 years? I guess they've made enough money to last for 2 years, thereafter all bets are off. Wonder if they lobbied Obama to make it 2 years instead of, say, 3 or 2.5. Note that the ban on gifts should last for "the duration of my service as an appointee." Who needs these paltry handouts? The real money will be made when we pass the damn 2-year term.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 24 2009 at 09:43
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


I know there isn't much we'll agree on but I can tell you have the same passion for political issues that I do.

I wouldn't call mine a "passion for political issues." It's rather a disgust with the state of political affairs of the last 15 years. See, we differ here tooTongueTongueTongue
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 24 2009 at 09:35
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Logan's link, since they are actual socialists. :P
Got you, thanks
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 24 2009 at 06:58
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


I have to say that I am still amused that you haven't gotten over or understood my mock indignation.  And I must say, I am not bothered by that in the least. LOL
Sorry for being a jackass. Though it is really hard to figure out when you're serious. Peace


That's cool.  When it comes to political discussions, it might help to know that I'm a big fan of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, also Keith Olbermann, who I was doing a little imitation of.  He does these special commentaries that are usually oozing with contempt and he does address those the redresses with "sir". 

I know there isn't much we'll agree on but I can tell you have the same passion for political issues that I do.

See there, NaturalScience, I actually can be serious, or was I, sir? Tongue




Edited by Slartibartfast - January 28 2009 at 17:35
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 23:25
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Psh, like I'm going to believe a bunch of socialists!

I thought this was an interesting editorial regarding the stimulus package, but I don't know how true it is.
Who do you call socialists? WSJ or Peter Schiff?
 
It's a plausible scenario, but there is another path to riches. If we can't sell our debt, we can simply print dollars for our internal consumption. Ultimately it would delute the existing money pool to such a degree that the dollar holdings of our creditors would be reduced to a virtual zero. It would harm us too but if the common wisdom says we have to stimulate spending thru deficits, new money should be created. i don't think the chinese would opt for destabilizing the entire world by refusing to finance our lifestyle.
Logan's link, since they are actual socialists. :P
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 20:16
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Though it is really hard to figure out when you're serious. Peace


I think the answer is never.  Wink
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 20:11
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


I have to say that I am still amused that you haven't gotten over or understood my mock indignation.  And I must say, I am not bothered by that in the least. LOL
Sorry for being a jackass. Though it is really hard to figure out when you're serious. Peace
Back to Top
crimhead View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 18:37
We need to get back to our roots of being a nation that produces instead of a nation that consumes. Borrowing money to give tax breaks is not going to help the USA if we are buying foreign made products. 
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 17:44
Well if it doesn't create enough jobs, how can making it cheaper improve the amount of jobs it will create?   Now if you get into the details, of course you could argue that it isn't structured properly. 

I have to say that I am still amused that you haven't gotten over or understood my mock indignation.  And I must say, I am not bothered by that in the least. LOL


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 28 2009 at 17:34
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 15:46
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Psh, like I'm going to believe a bunch of socialists!

I thought this was an interesting editorial regarding the stimulus package, but I don't know how true it is.
Who do you call socialists? WSJ or Peter Schiff?
 
It's a plausible scenario, but there is another path to riches. If we can't sell our debt, we can simply print dollars for our internal consumption. Ultimately it would delute the existing money pool to such a degree that the dollar holdings of our creditors would be reduced to a virtual zero. It would harm us too but if the common wisdom says we have to stimulate spending thru deficits, new money should be created. i don't think the chinese would opt for destabilizing the entire world by refusing to finance our lifestyle.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 15:21
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Here's an interesting article from the World Socialist Web Site: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/guan-j23.shtml

I won't reprint the whole thing:

Quote

On Thursday, President Barack Obama issued executive orders mandating the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison camp in a year’s time, requiring that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and military personnel follow the Army Field Manual’s prohibitions on torture, and closing secret CIA prisons overseas.

While the media is portraying these orders as a repudiation of the detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration, they actually change little. They essentially represent a public relations effort to refurbish the image of the United States abroad after years of torture and extralegal detentions and shield high-ranking American officials from potential criminal prosecution.

In cowardly fashion, Obama staged his signing of the orders in a manner aimed at placating the political right and defenders of Guantánamo and torture and underscoring his intention to continue the Bush administration’s “war on terror.”....

The more that things change, the more they stay the same?

It certainly was a PR move and not the best one
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 15:19
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Republicans claim the president's package is too expensive and doesn't create enough jobs.



So, it would create more jobs if it were cheaper? LOL  I think what they really meant is it doesn't throw enough money towards the wealthy. Wink

 
OT: Is it really that you don't understand what it says or just playing your favorite game again?
 
The plan is BOTH too expensive and doesn't create enough jobs. So have it changed to either be cheaper, or create enough jobs, or be cheaper AND create enough jobs. Any better? Now will you accuse me of insulting you with playing dirty?
 
Back to the subject: All this partisan crap is business as usual.
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 12:59
Psh, like I'm going to believe a bunch of socialists!

I thought this was an interesting editorial regarding the stimulus package, but I don't know how true it is.
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 12:56
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Republicans claim the president's package is too expensive and doesn't create enough jobs.



So, it would create more jobs if it were cheaper? LOL  I think what they really meant is it doesn't throw enough money towards the wealthy. Wink

Makes you wonder sometimes if Republicans are suffering from brain atrophy.

By the way a lot of people misunderstood, it was a war on terra http://terraserver-usa.com/ not a war on terror. Tongue



Edited by Slartibartfast - January 23 2009 at 13:01
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 36940 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 12:23
Here's an interesting article from the World Socialist Web Site: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/guan-j23.shtml

I won't reprint the whole thing:

Quote

On Thursday, President Barack Obama issued executive orders mandating the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison camp in a year’s time, requiring that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and military personnel follow the Army Field Manual’s prohibitions on torture, and closing secret CIA prisons overseas.

While the media is portraying these orders as a repudiation of the detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration, they actually change little. They essentially represent a public relations effort to refurbish the image of the United States abroad after years of torture and extralegal detentions and shield high-ranking American officials from potential criminal prosecution.

In cowardly fashion, Obama staged his signing of the orders in a manner aimed at placating the political right and defenders of Guantánamo and torture and underscoring his intention to continue the Bush administration’s “war on terror.”....

The more that things change, the more they stay the same?
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 36940 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 12:05
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Treating POW's humanely during WWII was mutual. Why should you treat humanely somebody who decapitates you in the most inhumane manner?


If you are decapitated, it's kind of hard to retaliate, unless one comes back as a ghost -- which is what I plan to do if my head gets lopped off (well, depending on which head).

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Quote Obama to reverse abortion policy

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortions, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion.

It's all very nice but is it the most important thing on Earth?!?!?


Defintely not; I am. ;) For me, the most important thing on Earth is my family -- it's relative.  He hasn't had a lot of time to tackle the bigger problems yet, such as climate change etc. 

Incidentally, sorry for the poor analogy before when it came to a suspected murderer and a suspected terrorist.  I should have elaborated on it and definitely should have mentioned extracting information, and coercing confessions, in the hopes of preventing more crimes.
I was thinking of the various allegations of torture, not a specific case (I did say suspected).  In Canada, the case of Omar Khada has been much in the news since he was captured at the age of 15 in Afghanistan, and there have been allegations of abuse of many prisoners, including him.  It's not an isolated incident, and of course it has been contested what the rights of enemy combatants, and suspected enemeny combatants who are civilians.  I don't think that all who were captured and sent to Gitmo worked for Al Qaeda or were terrorists.  In fact, many were released (including ones they didn't have sufficient evidence against and are working for Al Qaeda).  Some were defending their country and gov't, rightly or wrongly, even if not professional soldiers.  I am no fan of the Taliban, that's for sure.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/13/f-omar-khadr.html

More on Gitmo: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/07/f-guantanamo-legalbg.html

But I am digressing, and I'm too bored to write much about it, and we have been asked to stay on topic, and on a topic which is better discussed amongst lawyers due to all of the legal implications/ factors.

back on topic:

Quoted from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7847236.stm

Quote

Obama says stimulus deal on track

President Barack Obama has said that Congress is on target to approve his planned $825bn (£608bn) economic stimulus package by 16 February.

His comments came after he meet with Democrat and Republican leaders.

While the legislation is expected to face a relatively easy passage - due to the Democrats' majority in both houses - Mr Obama wants bipartisan support.

Various parts of the $825bn (£608bn) package have already been passed by House of Representatives committees.

President Obama said the US was facing an "unprecedented economic crisis" that had to be dealt with quickly.

'Working hard'

"Yes we wrote the bill, yes we won the election," said Democrats leader and House Speak Nancy Pelosi.


I recognize that there are still some difference around the table and between the administration and members of Congress about particular details on the plan
President Barack Obama

"But that doesn't mean we don't want it to have sustainability and bipartisan support, and the president is working hard to get that done."

Ms Pelosi reiterated the president's position that the bill would get to him by 16 February.

Despite Ms Pelosi's comments, some Republicans have accused the Democrats of "barrelling ahead without any bipartisan support".

Republicans claim the president's package is too expensive and doesn't create enough jobs.

Mr Obama said that while he was confident the bill would be delivered, he recognised that some opposition remained.

"I recognize that there are still some difference around the table and between the administration and members of Congress about particular details on the plan," he said.

The bill is currently being scrutinised by Congressional committees.

On Thursday, the ways and means committee approved the $275bn in planned tax cuts, with the 24 Democrats on the committee voting for the proposal, while the 13 Republicans voted against.

Another part of the bill, the call for spending $2.8bn on increased broadband services has passed through the energy and commerce committee.


I'm not at all confident in his approach, I wonder if he is?
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 10:04
cartoon
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 09:53
Quote Obama to reverse abortion policy

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortions, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion.

It's all very nice but is it the most important thing on Earth?!?!?


Edited by IVNORD - January 23 2009 at 09:54
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 23 2009 at 08:54
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

 
I am absolutely FOR the notion of presumption of innocence in criminal law, but on the other hand I am totally against the release of a suspect on a legal technicality.


Here's the thing that bugs me, if they had stuff on these guys, why haven't they prosecuted them already?  If you don't by now you never will.  Innocent people who are locked up tend to resent that.  Doubly so if they are tortured.  These people may go to the "battlefield" if they are now released, but it won't be "back to the battlefield", it will be out of desire for revenge.  Wouldn't you?  By not following the rule of law, even if there really aren't rules for these kind of prisoners, then you must go to the next best thing, the Geneva Convention.  As I recall, treating our enemies humanely worked out pretty well with WW II.  The last administration has set us up with something for which there are no good solutions.  Worse still, our policies have become recruitment tools for Al-Quieda.  If we continue to go down this road, Gitmo won't be big enough to house all the enemy combatants that will be coming our way.  Sure you have to be strong against those who would seek to attack you, but making new enemies is inherently stupid.
Soryy I misse d this one...
 
Presumption of innocence in CRIMINAL LAW. Not in terrorist lawlessness.
 
Treating POW's humanely during WWII was mutual. Why should you treat humanely somebody who decapitates you in the most inhumane manner?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1819202122>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.129 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.