Profile
Search
Register
Log in
2012 Election Sufurage.
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > The General Forum

Author Message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

I doubt it. But I mean really--the main policies that we all disagreed with Bush about, Obama has continued or ramped up.
Post Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2000
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

jakethesnake wrote:
The government should *not* be able to take your land because they want oil from Iran (again by pretending we don't want them to have nukes, just like Iraq) or whatever "war" we invent next week.


That isn't what's happening here. Why are you assuming that this is what's happening here? Has it happened even once in the sixty plus years this law has been in effect?
Post Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:49 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2000
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

@futuristxen: How have you felt about Kagan and Sotomayor so far? How have you felt about Roberts and Alito so far?

If Ginsburg or Scalia retire on Romney's watch, do you think Romney's choice for their successor would be more like Obama's appointees or Bush's appointees?
Post Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:59 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6310
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

Mark in Minnesota wrote:
@futuristxen: How have you felt about Kagan and Sotomayor so far? How have you felt about Roberts and Alito so far?

If Ginsburg or Scalia retire on Romney's watch, do you think Romney's choice for their successor would be more like Obama's appointees or Bush's appointees?


Whichever pays the most into the PAC's supporting Obama? I'm just being realistic.
Post Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:01 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2000
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

Huh?
Post Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:21 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
name



Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 955
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
I doubt a Romney government will be remarkably different than an Obama one. Which in the end, didn't end up being a lot different from a Bush government.


Ooooohhh. See what I did? I called Al Gore a republican!!

please.
Post Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:35 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MCGF



Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 367
 Reply with quote  

name wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
I doubt a Romney government will be remarkably different than an Obama one. Which in the end, didn't end up being a lot different from a Bush government.


Ooooohhh. See what I did? I called Al Gore a republican!!

please.


It is not an at all absurd thing to say. Obama's foreign policy has simply been a more polite version of Bush's. His assault on civil liberties has been unceasing; Obama has shown a Bush-like disregard for the law in favor of expanding executive power under the guise of National Security. As Mark keeps saying, the most concrete difference between the two presidents have been the Supreme Court appointees.
Post Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
T-Wrex
p00ny tang


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 6393
Location: Detroit, Michigan
 Reply with quote  

MCGF wrote:
name wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
I doubt a Romney government will be remarkably different than an Obama one. Which in the end, didn't end up being a lot different from a Bush government.


Ooooohhh. See what I did? I called Al Gore a republican!!

please.


It is not an at all absurd thing to say. Obama's foreign policy has simply been a more polite version of Bush's. His assault on civil liberties has been unceasing; Obama has shown a Bush-like disregard for the law in favor of expanding executive power under the guise of National Security. As Mark keeps saying, the most concrete difference between the two presidents have been the Supreme Court appointees.


Obama has just been another puppet for the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, big pharma, big business and the Federal Reserve bankers....

Fortune 500 runs this cuntry.
Post Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2000
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

I had about 1100 words more on this general topic but I think it's probably better for all involved if I don't post them. I think it's unhelpfully reductive to say that there will be little real difference between an Obama presidency and a Romney presidency, but ten paragraphs on that subject would probably be me letting myself get trolled over the sentiment instead of offering a proportionate response.

So instead I'll contain myself to just two points: First, I think that Sotomayor's support of the majority opinion on Graham v. Florida and on Brown v. Plata are each reasons why one ought to say that Obama is far less of a friend to the prison industrial complex than Mitt Romney would be, or than John McCain would have been.

Finally: A former boss of mine used to admonish me quite often that I was letting the best become the enemy of the good. That's a very old idea, but I think I see a strong example of it in staying home or voting for a fringe candidate because of dissatisfaction over Obama's first term. If there were a strong third party candidate on the ballot I might be making a different argument, but there isn't going to be one this year.
Post Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6310
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

With all the issues in our country... supreme court justice appointees are the largest difference between Obama and Bush/Romney? Really though, if your point is that the only big difference between Obama and Bush is the people he's appointing to the courts then you're not going to convince me, or anyone really, with 5 words or 5 million words, that the difference is meaningful. Presidents are corporate stooges that pander to the PACs and whoever donates them money. Call me a pessimist but that's reality right now.

And you're very wrong about John McCain. Being a prisoner of war, he's very sensitive to the POW industrial complex, and torture issues. On that subject, His policies would be superior to Obamas. It was the rest of McCain's platform and his running mate that were the problem.

Alas, frankly none of this shit matters. We have 2 choices, Romney and Obama. Romney is a bigger douche so lets *Hope* Obama wins and doesn't carry on the Bush legacy too strongly.
Post Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:08 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Limbs



Joined: 04 Feb 2011
Posts: 888
 Reply with quote  

Mark in Minnesota wrote:
I had about 1100 words more on this general topic but I think it's probably better for all involved if I don't post them. I think it's unhelpfully reductive to say that there will be little real difference between an Obama presidency and a Romney presidency, but ten paragraphs on that subject would probably be me letting myself get trolled over the sentiment instead of offering a proportionate response.


I think there's some folks who wouldn't mind reading it though.
Post Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:44 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2000
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

I never said that I think Supreme Court appointments are the largest difference. Just that-unlike most other things that vary between presidencies--they're a meaningful difference that we will still be living with for decades after this election is over. This isn't the office for the left to strategically lose an election over for coalition-building purposes.

McCain may have reason to be more personally sensitive to the issue of prison conditions than most Republicans, but Brown v. Plata would almost certainly have been decided in the other direction had he been the man to appoint Justice Souter's replacement to the bench. That ruling forced California to do something about its unconscionable prison overcrowding situation in spite of the politically inconvenient budget considerations that had previously prevented them from doing so. Sotomayor sided with the majority in a 5-4 decision. A McCain appointee would likely have sided with Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito in their dissent, allowing the overcrowding to continue indefinitely.
Post Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:53 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark in Minnesota



Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 2000
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN
 Reply with quote  

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/03/supreme-courts-ruling-in-coleman-v.html


Quote:

On Tuesday, a sharply fractured Supreme Court issued its ruling in Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, holding that individuals may not sue a state government employer for money damages for violating the self-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act. In a 5-4 ruling – the first opinion on the scope of Congress’ power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment since John Roberts became Chief Justice – the conservatives on the Roberts Court joined in holding that the FMLA’s self-care provision was not a valid exercise of Congress’ power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, distinguishing the Court’s 2003 decision in Nevada Dep’t of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which had permitted suits against the states under the family-care provision of the FMLA. In an opinion striking in its willingness to second-guess Congress’ exercise of its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s command of equality for all persons, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined the Hibbs dissenters in holding that Congress lacked the power to subject states to suits for money damages for violating the FMLA’s provision giving individuals the right to take medical leave to care for a pregnancy, illness, or other medical condition.


That was this week. A conservative majority in the Supreme Court saying that states can use sovereign immunity to duck certain kinds of lawsuits when the states--not in their role as a government, but in their role as an employer--violate federal law governing employer-employee relationships. A blow against labor rights decided by five Republican appointees to the Court over the objections of four Democratic appointees to the Court. The Court has moved to the right since 2003 in its thinking on Fourteenth Amendment issues. Ginsburg specifically called the conservative majority out for that in her dissent--a dissent that both of Obama's appointees joined.

The two votes that swung since 2003 were both Bush-appointed replacements to the bench for Republican appointees--Roberts for Rehnquist, and Alito for O'Connor. The conservative wing of the court has to some extent gotten more conservative.

The specific issue that was decided here (state sovereignty trumping a specific instance of federal labor law) could very well crop up again in things like a federal lawsuit over the State of Wisconsin choosing to limit the collective bargaining rights of state employees.

This is also happening against the backdrop of a flurry of state laws intended to restrict access to abortion, to require women to receive additional counseling or invasive ultrasounds, etc. -- all of these will likely end up in federal court over 14th Amendment issues. The fact that lawsuits are likely to happen is actually the point of many of the laws, as the thinking is that the Roberts Court might potentially be disposed to overturn Roe v Wade.

The 14th will likely also be a topic of discussion when challenges to DOMA finally make it to the Supreme Court--particularly given that the Department of Justice has been filing briefs saying that they believe the law is unconstitutional under §1 of the Amendment.
Post Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6310
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

Fuck your Obama:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17516108


Quote:

Obama and Medvedev caught in unguarded missile remarks

Barack Obama was recorded saying he would have more "flexibility" after November's election


TV cameras have recorded US President Barack Obama making unguarded comments with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Mr Obama said he would have more "flexibility" on difficult issues such as the US missile defence plans after November's election.

Mr Medvedev said he would relay the message to Vladimir, a reference to newly elected President Vladimir Putin.

The White House later released a statement playing down the importance of the remarks.

"Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough," said deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.

Moscow has long opposed American plans to build a so-called defence shield in and around Europe capable of shooting down ballistic missiles.

Mr Obama and Mr Medvedev met during a nuclear summit in the South Korean capital Seoul.

According to a transcript of the recorded remarks carried by ABC News, Mr Obama told his Russian counterpart: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."

Mr Medvedev responded: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you."

Mr Obama then said: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

Mr Medvedev replied: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

Numerous politicians have found remarks that they thought were private being captured by open microphones.

In 2006 US President George Bush was caught in a candid conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. It became famous for Mr Bush starting the exchange with "Yo, Blair".

And in November last year President Sarkozy was heard describing the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a "liar", also while talking with Mr Obama.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/open-mic-catches-obama-asking-russian-president-for-space-on-missile-defense/?hpt=hp_c2
Post Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:03 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
mlanifesto



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 354
Location: UK>Head Like a Fucking Orange County>San Francisco
 Reply with quote  

Didn't Obama quash the Star Wars bullshit a few years ago?
Why does he need to wait until after the election to dump a military industrial complex boondoggle that was already dead?

That move and the accompanying speech in the Czech Republic was one of the few times I was proper impressed by the bloke.

EDIT- Ah, seems I got caught up in the speech... only one radar station was stopped...
Post Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:12 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Aug 30, 2014 2:12 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon