CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN SAME OLD BULLSHIT
I'm sure some of you saw Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley on Olbermann, discussing Obama's defense of the Bush administration's wire-tapping shenanigans. I'm having a hard time embedding the video for some reason, but it's on this link.
Turley has some devasting things to say about Obama's clearly-lacking Civil Liberties bona fides:
But Obama's actions so far? Well, to put it bluntly, they suck.
Turley has some devasting things to say about Obama's clearly-lacking Civil Liberties bona fides:
It is impossible to have a Constitutional right that can never be enforced. And that's what we have here - and it's a terrible moment, I think for many people, but, you can not any longer suggest President Obama is advancing the civil liberties and privacy interests that he promised to advance. This is a terrible roll-back. It's a terrible decision. And the Obama people seem to be arguing that the Bush people were bad people doing bad things, but you know what? It doesn't matter if you say you are a good person doing bad things, you're doing bad things and that what this is.That last sentence is really the perfect summary of the Obama presidency: wonderful words that are oh-so-soothing after the wounds inflicted by Bush & Cheney.
But Obama's actions so far? Well, to put it bluntly, they suck.
Labels: Talk Is Cheap
posted by Mike at 5:46 AM
17 Comments:
The Professor says: ...our President is more interested in programs than principles.
Sigh.
Sadly, this is true. I saw that the dropping of Stevens' charges was a good thing; Bush admin prosecutoral misconduct and such. But dropping this too? One thing I looked forward to was hauling those guys in! And now...they're free, and my phones can still be tapped.
Since Comcast "upgraded" MSNBC to digital only subscribers last year, I no longer see Olbermann's show, except when people make mention of him. I've heard a lot of criticism regarding his election coverage and some ugly remarks regarding his favoritism of Obama. I suppose this policy will rein in that enthusiasm.
During the previous admin, I really enjoyed listening to Turley rail against W for what amounted to defecating on the Constitution. To hear Turley go after this admin for similar Constitutional shenanigans is downright depressing. I knew I was going to disagree with Obama on a lot of his policies, but I didn't think that civil liberty was going to be one of them.
Senator Obama publically railed against the FISA bill as Senator. Then voted for it.
Senator Obama promised to fight the FISA bill to the end. He promised to filibuster it and do everything in his power to stop it from passing. But instead, he voted for it.
First Year Senator Obama, actually voted against a few of Bush's favorite bills.
Second Year Senator Obama vote to give Bush everything he desired.
We love Obama, because he tells us lies that we want to hear.
Before the election, when I brought up his duplicity on various forums, people told me again and again that as Senator, he didn't have the power to live and work according to his principles. He had to do as the leadership told him to do. As President, we'd see him put his real principles into action.
We are seeing the real Obama now. We are seeing the strength of his character and his principles, as he demonstrates them in full public view.
Not that MaCain would've done things differently. But he wouldn't have to have lied about his intentions. He was in favor of the bailout, the erosion of the civil liberties, and engaging in new expanded wars, from the get go.
Hey, how come no one is floating the notion that Obama is a pragmatic leader who understands that massive societal change might not necessarily be accomplished in his first 100 days? Just a thought...
Ricky Henderson, I don't trust people who spend years lying to me.
Obama was a fraud and a liar as Senator. He's still a fraud and a liar. Do you think that after his first 100 days, he'll transform into Ghandi or something?
Obama is making it clear that he is working hard to continue George Bush II's legacy. He's working real hard on it. Perhaps if he worked hard for the change he promised, I'd begin to believe in him.
Now some people are content with being lied to, while being robbed blind. Con men call them 'marks'.
Obama is a con man. What are you?
Obama is making it clear that he is working hard to continue George Bush II's legacy.
I'm not going to defend Obama's move, because I am not informed on it, but the comment above is over the top.
Yeah, I am sure Obama has been dying to continue Bush's legacy. He secretly loves all his policies and wants to be tossed out of office a failure.
Yep, that's the ticket.
/sarcasm
Weas, very well-said in your first comment.
how come no one is floating the notion that Obama is a pragmatic leader who understands that massive societal change might not necessarily be accomplished in his first 100 days?
No one is floating around the idea that Obama's brain was taken over my invaders from Jupiter either. Lots of unlikely explanations we could offer. I'll stick to the facts I see. Others seem to choose faith, based on nothing more than the lofty rhetoric Obama used during his campaign.
I'm not going to defend Obama's move, because I am not informed on it, but the comment above is over the top.
This makes no sense. If you're not informed on what Obama did, how can you declare the the criticism of his move is "over the top"?
Anyhow, what explanation do you have as to why Obama is continuing the wiretapping program? Or nationalizing GM and firing its CEO? I know you don't like that move, so why do you give Obama a free ride?
Would you have given McCain the same amount of slack?
"Hey, how come no one is floating the notion that Obama is a pragmatic leader who understands that massive societal change might not necessarily be accomplished in his first 100 days"
I would submit that we're seeing a continuation of the "massive societal change that took place under Bush II."
1. Massive of growth in government spending;
2. Massive growth in the government borrowing;
3. Massive growth in government defefits;
4. Massive transfers of private debt to the Federal Reserve's balance sheet;
5. Massive Federal Reserve debt monetization of public debt;
6. Massive transfers of wealth to the banking community;
7. Surreptious maneuverings to avoid legislative restrictions on the behavior of TARP recipients;
8. "Audacious" legal arguments defending government violations of constituional rights. Oh, and this not my "interpretation;" th Obama Administration is arguing that they citizens should have no recourse against ILLEGAL government wire taps for so long as the information gathered in such wire taps aren't used against them. This goes beyond what the Bush Administration's arguments.
Moreover, Obama enjoys mid-60s approval ratings while bankers enjoys -- oh -- 1% approval ratings? And prominent, would-be-ally economists call his Treasury Secreatary's plan a "sham," a "taxpayer ripoff," etc.
So, ask yourself: why is he pressing ahead with the massive wealth transfer to Wall St.?
"Pragmatism?"
I think not.
I'll repeat Weasledog's question to any non-banking Obama supporter:
Obama is a con man. What are you?
Applesaucer
"Pragmatism?"
I think not.
Unless his goal is a shift of wealth to his Bankster supporters. Then it's highly pragmatic.
Obama is a con man. What are you?
Yes, absofuckinglutely, clearly Rickey is a mark for this blatant and widescale continuation of Bush era policies.
The nutjob right is moaning that we're sliding to socialism and the indignant left thinks GWB is still in the Oval Office. Madness.
"This makes no sense. If you're not informed on what Obama did, how can you declare the the criticism of his move is "over the top"?"
I am just not informed on the wiretapping issue. I just thought that the generalization that he was trying to broadly coninue the policies (plural) of GWB was an exageration. That is all.
"Anyhow, what explanation do you have as to why Obama is continuing the wiretapping program? Or nationalizing GM and firing its CEO? I know you don't like that move, so why do you give Obama a free ride?"
I have no intention of giving him a freeride on either of the issues above, I just don't rush to paint him as a GWB clone.
What I objected to was the overly broad brush that applesaucer painted him as and that he was continuing Bush's "legacies" as if all their policies are the same. That was just not true.
Rip on him for the wiretap issue all you want, you very well may be right.
The nutjob right is moaning that we're sliding to socialism and the indignant left thinks GWB is still in the Oval Office.
Could it be that they're both correct?
painted him as and that he was continuing Bush's "legacies" as if all their policies are the same. That was just not true.
I also think they're the same. Please explain the differences.
I also think they're the same. Please explain the differences.
I have to ask a question frist. I could agree that the wiretapping and bank bailout policies are the same, but do you really thing ALL their policies are?
Even on banking I think we will see differences in how banks are regualted that will differentiate Obama from Bush or Clinton. That is the future, so we will need to wait and see.
What other policies? Stem cell, foreign engagement, taxes, spending priorities, on and on and on. Do I really need to list them all.
My original comment,was meant to start a strong debate, but if we start saying essentially saying that all polititicans are the same, we will stop having a good debate on the issues.
on banking I think we will see differences in how banks are regualted that will differentiate Obama from Bush or Clinton.
I'm not seeing the difference. You're saying we will see a difference, and you're abasing on what Obama says he'll do. I'm basing my point on what he's done so far. Which is to continue Bush's policy.
What other policies? Stem cell, foreign engagement, taxes, spending priorities, on and on and on
Again, I don't care what he says he'll do. He's a bullshitter. I care what he does. And so far, he's done nothing different than Bush.
All the things I listed: Stem cell, foreign engagement, taxes, spending priorities are all different than Bush. The stem cell policy was a complete reversal of a Bush policy. His spending priorites are definately different. His engagement with Iran ha sbeen different. This isn't the future, this is what he HAS done.
If you are making the case that they aren't far enough to the left, then maybe I could understand your opinion.
On spending priorities he may end up being different than Bush. But I ain't seen it yet. All I've seen is that, like Bush, he spends too damn much.
And as to foreign engagement, I'm not sure what he's done differently so far. Except make plans to invade Mexico.
I'll give you stem cells.
Bob, if two cooks each make a pot roast, can you argue that they didn't because they used different recipes? I think in your frame of argument, then answer is yes.
I don't see fundamental differences in how Obama and Bush are leading our country.
And I understand that you know nothing of what Obama did as Senator. So can I assume that everything you know about Obama comes from his speeches and his actions so far as president?
I've been following his record as a Senator since I first heard he was throwing his hat in the ring.
And I understand that your feelings tell you that I must be wrong. But I don't feel your feelings, and I'm not worried about hurting them. Obama's record speaks for itself. He's a liar and a con man. There can be no doubt to this assessment, if you actually take the time to study his speaking record and voting record together.
I'm not a leftist or a rightist. The two party system is designed to divide Americans across opposing enemies lines, so that we can fight each other while the Bush and Obamas steal our country away.
I'm a Constitutional Constructionist.
Post a Comment
<< Home