Flip flops and governance: Obama not as advertised

[hokie4redskins]

Care to restate that, 4skin?

Wow, you sure pwn3d me, huh?

Check post #36.

[The Evil Genius]

Wow, you sure pwn3d me, huh?

Check post #36.

You mean the one were you said that, "My main point is that Obama is essentially continuing many of Bush's policies."

The same point that Predicto just demonstrated that the exact opposite is happening? When this administration decides to detain all the Gitmo detainees without trial infefinitely, then you might have a point. Until then, it appears that this administration is moving the scales of justice back to the center of the balance.

[alexey]

Well, I'll give blackness, but for the others do you want to cite an actual example.

Where has he been intellectually honest in a manner that is different than the last 30 years or so.

Oh and just so you know, the Obama proposed budget increase to the NIH in 2010 1.5%.

http://www.genomeweb.com/obamas-2010-budget-proposes-308b-nih

I do not see a point in this. Future events will either prove me wrong or make my point for me.

[hokie4redskins]

You mean the one were you said that, "My main point is that Obama is essentially continuing many of Bush's policies."

The same point that Predicto just demonstrated that the exact opposite is happening?

Man, you sure love quibbling over semantics.

Did he, or did he not go 180 on a campaign promise?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5657316

To say he's not following similar paths of a predecessor whom he and his lemmings lambasted is just subjectivity on your part.

For the record, I'm not even blasting Obama on national security. Just those that deny the hypocrisy.

Great answer Predicto. Lazy retort Hokie.

:yawnee:

[PeterMP]

Karl Rove characterizes Bush's actions and characterizes Obama's actions, and we all accept his characterizations without question? What the hell?

Hokie4Redskins says none of us can refute these arguments on the merits. Bull.

Here's one example. Rove is complaining that Obama is continuing military tribunals... therefore Obama is the same as Bush and it it unfair because Bush was criticized for how he handled Gitmo prisoners. And all of you are swallowing this argument whole hog.

It's crap.

Bush at first didn't want there to be any trials AT ALL of the guys in Gitmo and claimed that they were "illegal enemy combatats" (a brand new term) and thus had no right to even appear in US courts to try to assert their rights even if they were US CITIZENS. He got shot down by the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Then he went back and wanted to have double secret star chamber trials that provided none of the due process protections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva conventions or our Constitution. He got shot down by the Supreme Court AGAIN in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

So then Congress authorizes military tribunals provided that due process is protected.

When Obama comes in, he suspends the military tribunals and has his people review them. Then he announces that he's going to try most detainees in federal court, but a few will be tried in military tribunals - and the few tribunals that are held again will need to be changed in to better protect the rights of the accused.

So now Karl freaking Rove himself, the ultimate political crap-peddler, comes along and says: "See, Obama is exactly like Bush and supports all the Bush actions of the past eight years. How unfair the criticism of the Bush Administration was. What hypocrites you all are."

Rove ignores all that history, spews that nonsense - and all of you are playing along and letting him do it and pretending that the comparison is valid and legitimate.

You guys are total suckers. I expect Rove to be able to play hokie4redskins like a fiddle, but not the rest of you.

A nice intelligent post, BUT do you want me to give you links to the threads that are pages of long that talked about how awful the law you are referring to is and how it represented a total cave in by the Republican Congressional leadership (e.g. McCain) and gave Bush everything he wanted?

Seriously (because you might now), do you know the guidelines for who will be tried in federal court and who won't?

Are they legal or just intelligence based?

Doesn't that give those tried in the military tribunuals a pretty automatic appeal to the Federal courts (e.g. violation of equal protection)?

[Predicto]

And actually, it was Henry who said that the article can't be refuted. Learn to read and comprehend context before you go spewing venom uncontrollably.

Let's see - what has Hokie4Redskins said in this thread....

"the "it's okay when Obama does it" hypocrisy coming from people who blasted Bush for identical measures and actions is hilarious"

"Exhibit A to said hypocrisy. Bush does it = incompetent screwup. Obama does exact same thing = competent individual and anybody with common sense can see it."

"Ahh, must be that pesky liberal nuance I sorely lack. So lemme get this straight: It's not the policies you object to, it's the person who implements the identical policies?"

"True. Not that I expected anyone to actually refute the article........cogently that is."

I just demonstrated that the two policies are not "identical." I just demonstrated that Obama has not done exactly what Bush did, and that there is more history there. I directly refuted the article, just as you said no one would.

And that was the best response you could come up with?

Keep going. You are right at your usual hokie4redskins Tailgate batting average.

[Henry]

Well, by 1980, you clearly have a national media in place.

I picked the 1976 election on purpose because it so well models the 74-76 election. The Republicans paid in '74, but in '76 kept paying.

You'd have to look at in some detail, but '74 would be the need to leave politicians (politicians that for some reason had up-set their constituents not necessarily a vote against the "party"). 1976 would be the "punishment" phase. There was essentially no extended punishment.

Obviously, the party exist because of some shared belief system. If those beliefs result in bad policies, then the "party" is going to be "punished" because those advocating those beliefs are going to lose elections.

That's still a vote against (or for) the policies, not just the leaders.

Go even further back in time. Look at 1956. Eisenhower killed Stevenson, but the Republicans lost house seats and had no affect on the Senate.

FDR had large "coat tails" (of course the Republicans were wrong on issues so they lost a lot because most of them were wrong). However, in 1940, FDR was still winning elections big, but the Republicans gained 3 seats in the Senate.

It is difficult historically to make the arguement of punishing down ticket candidates because of the incompetency of the leaders.

I'm a simple man and you are confusing me with your big words and compound sentences. Let me try again:

You do a bad job you get voted out.

Do you

a) disagree that that is the case and/or

think that's a bad way to run a nation?

[Henry]

And actually, it was Henry who said that the article can't be refuted.

That's because I'm lazy like Predicto insinuated and I didn't really need to go into that sort of detail to show Rove is full of crap.

[Forehead]

I'm probably the furthest thing from a political junkie there is on this board, so I just have two quick observations and then I'll duck and cover.

1. Has there been any president in history that backed up 100% of his campaign promises to the letter?

2. Shouldn't a president be given more than 120 days in office before he's labeled as a hypocrite, failure, and betrayer?

The only president who may have come close to escaping this mudslinging was William Henry Harrison, and I'll bet someone ****ed about him that first month.

[The Evil Genius]

Man, you sure love quibbling over semantics.

Did he, or did he not go 180 on a campaign promise?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5657316

To say he's not following similar paths of a predecessor whom he and his lemmings lambasted is just subjectivity on your part.

For the record, I'm not even blasting Obama on national security. Just those that deny the hypocrisy.

:yawnee:

So you are making 2 arguments then? One - he went against a campaign promise. Two - he is just like Bush because he uses military tribunals?

On 1 - it appears you are correct.

On 2 - I think its lazy to say they are both oranges. Especially when one was apple until the courts made him an orange.

[The Evil Genius]

Now - I get to be lazy. Can someone link the campaign promise to end the tribunals?

[Predicto]

A nice intelligent post, BUT do you want me to give you links to the pages of threads that talked about how awful the law you are referring to is and how it represented a total cave in by the Republican Congressional leadership (e.g. McCain) and gave Bush everything he wanted?

Seriously (because you might now), do you know the guidelines for who will be tried in federal court and who won't?

Are they legal or just intelligence based?

Doesn't that give those tried in the military tribunuals a pretty automatic appeal to the Federal courts (e.g. violation of equal protection)?

I am not defending the military tribunal approach at all. I do not like the military tribunal appruach and I doubt that Obama (or anyone) can provide adequate due process in such a proceeding.

But that is not what the Rove piece or this Tailgate discussion is about.

I was refuting the claims that 1) what Obama is doing is exactly the same as what Bush did and 2) Obama has just validated everything Bush did from teh beginning, and 3) Anyone who ever criticized Bush for anything involving Gitmo is a hypocrite now. All of those are false.

As far as I know, it is even false to claim that Obama ever promised that there would be no more military tribunals. He only said that the tribunals had to change to conform to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The far left may have taken this as a promise to close them all down, but it looks to me like Obama was keeping some of his options open.

This is a classic Karl Rove - spin deflect and lie to the nth degree. People should see through it, because people like hokie4skins will keep peddling it, guaranteed.

[Predicto]

Now - I get to be lazy. Can someone link the campaign promise to end the tribunals?

I didn't find it, but I only did a basic google search.

[hokie4redskins]

So you are making 2 arguments then? One - he went against a campaign promise. Two - he is just like Bush because he uses military tribunals?

On 1 - it appears you are correct.

On 2 - I think its lazy to say they are both oranges. Especially when one was apple until the courts made him an orange.

Man alive.

The guy campaigns on change. He campaigns on righting all the wrongs of his predecessor. When he backs out on a promise, it's indicative of following similar policy of his predecessor. Is it not?

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

[Predicto]

Man alive.

The guy campaigns on change. He campaigns on righting all the wrongs of his predecessor. When he backs out on a promise, it's indicative of following similar policy of his predecessor. Is it not?

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Because you are misrepresenting it. Just like Rove.

[The Evil Genius]

Man alive.

The guy campaigns on change. He campaigns on righting all the wrongs of his predecessor. When he backs out on a promise, it's indicative of following similar policy of his predecessor. Is it not?

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Because it's an incorrect assumption.

[hokie4redskins]

Now - I get to be lazy. Can someone link the campaign promise to end the tribunals?

Proof nobody reads my posts before they start blasting me. Simplest of google searches provided courtesy of H4R.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x5657316

[Predicto]

Proof nobody reads my posts before they start blasting me. Simplest of google searches provided courtesy of H4R.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x5657316

Link isn't working for me.

[alexey]

Proof nobody reads my posts before they start blasting me. Simplest of google searches provided courtesy of H4R.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x5657316

Do you have something other than a quote by Bluebear from the democraticunderground.com?

The LA Times article linked from that post provides the following evidence of Obama's campaign promise:

"It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice," Obama said in August.

[The Evil Genius]

Proof nobody reads my posts before they start blasting me. Simplest of google searches provided courtesy of H4R.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x5657316

Your proof is to link to a poster on the DU? Was he the speech writer or something?

[@DCGoldPants]

Your proof is to link to a poster on the DU? Was he the speech writer or something?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Man alive.

The guy campaigns on change. He campaigns on righting all the wrongs of his predecessor. When he backs out on a promise, it's indicative of following similar policy of his predecessor. Is it not?

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Honestly, its just showing that you did not take any time to listen to what Obama was proposing during his campaign. Likewise, you didn't/don't have any clue why people were pissed about Gitmo and "permanent detainees."

[Bang]

So, I'm confused.

It seems that most of these campaign promises are of the sort that had to do with the war and promises made on trying to change how we pursued such.

So, are we naive enough to believe that a candidate is let in on the real nitty gritty of the war intelligence briefings while he's campaigning? Do we agree that it looks like most of these broken promises seem to be of the sort of a promise made, then reality discovered once privilege to certain information became available?

And if that is the case, would it be better for him to say **** the reality of the situation, I'm going to follow through on the promise i made regardless?

I'd suggest it would be stupid of him to do so, no?

So, I'm really confused as to what the actual problem is here. He's following through on policies the right agrees with. It appears as though he's able and willing to put the security of the nation ahead of his campaign promises. So what exactly is the problem?

Here's what I hear:

Nyahnyah! He made a promise we didn't like, and now that he can't keep it and has to do what we wanted him to do all along, we don't like that either.

We'd rather he put ideology ahead of country and ignore previously unknown information when deciding which way to progress.

~Bang

[alexey]

So, I'm confused.

It seems that most of these campaign promises are of the sort that had to do with the war and promises made on trying to change how we pursued such.

So, are we naive enough to believe that a candidate is let in on the real nitty gritty of the war intelligence briefings while he's campaigning? Do we agree that it looks like most of these broken promises seem to be of the sort of a promise made, then reality discovered once privilege to certain information became available?

And if that is the case, would it be better for him to say **** the reality of the situation, I'm going to follow through on the promise i made regardless?

I'd suggest it would be stupid of him to do so, no?

So, I'm really confused as to what the actual problem is here. He's following through on policies the right agrees with. It appears as though he's able and willing to put the security of the nation ahead of his campaign promises. So what exactly is the problem?

Here's what I hear:

Nyahnyah! He made a promise we didn't like, and now that he can't keep it and has to do what we wanted him to do all along, we don't like that either.

We'd rather he put ideology ahead of country and ignore previously unknown information when deciding which way to progress.

~Bang

That sounds about right... also now it appears that he didn't even make the promise that he is supposedly breaking.

[#98QBKiller]

Do we agree that it looks like most of these broken promises seem to be of the sort of a promise made, then reality discovered once privilege to certain information became available?

This is exactly right.

And if that is the case, would it be better for him to say **** the reality of the situation, I'm going to follow through on the promise i made regardless?

I'd suggest it would be stupid of him to do so, no?

Nope it would not be better and yes it would be stupid and stubborn to do so.

So, I'm really confused as to what the actual problem is here. He's following through on policies the right agrees with. It appears as though he's able and willing to put the security of the nation ahead of his campaign promises. So what exactly is the problem?

:secret: It's a pissing contest. That's all.