(5.29.09): "Ted Rall: It’s increasingly evident that Obama should resign" (sj-r.com)

[sojourner]

Ted Rall: It’s increasingly evident that Obama should resign

MIAMI — We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

From health care to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the nerve to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?

Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now — before he drags us further into the abyss.

I refer here to Obama’s plan for “preventive detentions.” If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in “prolonged detention.” Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama’s shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.

In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.

Source: THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER (http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x124603932/Ted-Rall-It-s-increasingly-evident-that-Obama-should-resign)

[Horizon]

Really? And leave us with Joe "the gaffe" Biden? :laughing:

Really, think this through. You might not want this as bad as you think you do.:rolleyes:

[Spang]

Obama is doing just fine.

[CGP]

Resign? What nonsense. And I am not even a huge BO fan.

There needs to be a YAWN icon...

[sojourner]

Resign? What nonsense. And I am not even a huge BO fan.

It is no worse that some of the hyperbole used in this site.

I find it interesting that people that were railing about Guantanamo and Bush’s warrantless wire-taps and now okay with Obama’s expansion of Bush’s policies. I would have thought that most posters here would be outraged at Obama's plan "preventive detention."

[Ikasu]

I find it interesting that people that were railing about Guantanamo and Bush’s warrantless wire-taps and now okay with Obama’s expansion of Bush’s policies. I would have thought that most posters here would be outraged at Obama's plan "preventive detention."

I'm not okay with it and liberals (besides the Obama cheerleaders) are furious with it. I made a thread about it that didn't get a lot of attention.

BTW: Ted Rall is a lefty, so it's not surprising he wants W II to resign.

[sojourner]

Resign? What nonsense. And I am not even a huge BO fan...

It is no worse that some of the hyperbole used in this site.

I find it interesting that people that were railing about Guantanamo and Bush’s warrantless wire-taps and now okay with Obama’s expansion of Bush’s policies.

I would have thought there would have been a lot of outrage over Obama’s “Preventive Detention” plan.

Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people’s lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can’t control, what George Orwell called “thoughtcrime” — contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.

Locking up people who haven’t done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to “preventive detention” is an outrage. That the president of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.

[Spang]

I'd probably be furious over preventive detention if I knew what it meant, but I'm not that smart. I know some things but I don't know everything.

[BillDemo]

BO is not gonna resign anytime soon.
And blinded voters are unfortunately going to elect him again in 2012.
So we're stuck with "useless" Obama for 8 years, whether we like it or not.
:(

[sojourner]

I'd probably be furious over preventive detention if I knew what it meant, but I'm not that smart. I know some things but I don't know everything.

The short answer is that Obama wants to extend and legalize Bush’s Guantanamo policies.

Here is a rather long column that brings up some interesting points:
Backlash grows against Obama's preventive detention proposal
(http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/25/obama/index.html)
Here are a couple:
Feingold's last point -- that the more Obama embraces radical Bush/Cheney polices, the more entrenched they become as bipartisan consensus -- is critically important, and extends to other policies as well, from the use of state secrets to block judicial review of executive branch lawbreaking, the concealment of evidence of government crimes, the veneration of "looking-forward political harmony" over the rule of law in cases of extreme government lawbreaking, and the denial of habeas corpus rights to individuals we abduct and transport to a war zone (such as Bagram).

That Obama may be motivated to seek out a Justice with much more permissive views of executive power than those to which the Bush-41-appointed Souter subscribed -- all in order to ensure that the Court approves of his "counter-terrorism" policies -- simply underscores the irony of what Obama is doing in this area.

The irony being that Souter was a very reliable vote in favor of placing some limits on Bush's executive power assertions (which were almost invariably 5-4 decisions against Bush).

[Wyoming Dem]

I don't think he should resign..."resign" implies that he attained the office legally. I would rather he was indicted for treason...for consorting and negotiating with Iraqi and Afghanistan officials BEFORE he was elected and countermanding the existing Administration, in DIRECT conflict with US law which translates to treason (and Karzi publicly stated that Obama did in fact, make specific promises.) For accepting ILLEGAL campaign contributions from non-US citizens dwelling outside of the United States, which Obama ADMITTED and the money has still never been returned. For man-handling and intimidating delegates at the the Democratic Convention, which...we all saw and watched video of and listened to tapes of obtained from people on this forum who were in attendance so don't bother telling me that is not true or cannot be proved. And there are several more instances where he directly broke the laws of this country and obtained the Presidency under and by false pretenses. I am no conspiracy person or hard-line radical...Obama is in fact a usurper and history will prove this out. So I don't want a lousy resignation...I want the Obama media whores forced to show tape of Obama being led away in handcuffs. Boy, I am in a crappy little mood today...

[Spang]

And waterboard Obama, too! **==

[Wyoming Dem]

And waterboard Obama, too! **==
Thank you Spang...I forgot that one. If it's good enough for Jihadists, it's good enough for Obama.

[Spang]

Thank you Spang...I forgot that one. If it's good enough for Jihadists, it's good enough for Obama.

And his wife and kids, too! **==

[Wyoming Dem]

And his wife and kids, too! **==
The wife for sure ( more) but, even 'tho I do not like children, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and they could most likely be de-Obamafied...:D And see...that's my point about the NBC "Obama Reality Show" I don't want to know one damn thing about his haggy wife or his kids. They are totally irrelevant (and I felt the same exact way about the Kennedy, CLinton or any other Presiden't family...I do not give a hoot about any of them) The Presidency is just another goddamn job...Do you have to watch video of your Insurance agent's family??? Okay, that's enough...I have proven my bitterness without a shadow of a doubt and will refrain from any other snarky remarks. :thumbsup:

[Spang]

The wife for sure ( more) but, even 'tho I do not like children, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and they could most likely be de-Obamafied...:D And see...that's my point about the NBC "Obama Reality Show" I don't want to know one damn thing about his haggy wife or his kids. They are totally irrelevant (and I felt the same exact way about the Kennedy, CLinton or any other Presiden't family...I do not give a hoot about any of them) The Presidency is just another goddamn job...Do you have to watch video of your Insurance agent's family??? Okay, that's enough...I have proven my bitterness without a shadow of a doubt and will refrain from any other snarky remarks. :thumbsup:

The kids need to be waterboarded, too. They pal around with Obama. They're all evil scum. **==

[Wyoming Dem]

The kids need to be waterboarded, too. They pal around with Obama. They're all evil scum. **==
The kids might like the waterboarding...

[Spang]

The kids might like the waterboarding...

It's not torture, so it's probably a lot of fun.

[Wyoming Dem]

it's not torture, so it's probably a lot of fun.

:d:d:d

[VotingHillary]

Resign? What nonsense. And I am not even a huge BO fan.

There needs to be a YAWN icon...

hillarystamp!

Unrealistic rubbish. Bush lasted eight years but Obama should be out in less than 6 months? Sheesh....and I am not a BO fan either.

[sojourner]

hillarystamp!

Unrealistic rubbish. Bush lasted eight years but Obama should be out in less than 6 months? Sheesh....and I am not a BO fan either.

Rall might be over the top suggesting that Obama should step down, but do you really think that opposing "preventive detention" is rubbish?

[The_Basseteer]

Flash: Obama More Evil Than Bush..Moving To Stifle Freedom Of Speech

O.K., Now that I have your attention;

From: Michelle Malkin

White House pushing to gag stimulus critics (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/30/white-house-pushing-to-gag-stimulus-critics/)
By Michelle Malkin • May 30, 2009 10:03 AM

Caution: Obama gangland tactics at work.

In keeping with his past campaign tactics to shut critics up through brute force (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/26/fighting-obamas-goon-squad/), the White House appears to be taking steps to crack down on critics of the trillion-dollar porkulus law.

Is anyone surprised? Mark Tapscott at the Examiner reports: (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/TapscottsCopyDesk/White-House-moves-to-restrict-criticism-of-stimulus-projects--46540777.html)

A new White House policy on permissible lobbying on economic recovery and stimulus project has taken a decidedly anti-First Amendment turn. It’s a classic illustration of Big Government trying to control every aspect of a particular activity and in the process running up against civil liberty.

Check out this passage from a post on the White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added):

“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

Writes Tapscott:

The key passage is the reference to expanding regulation from registered lobbyists to “anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.”

This is the Camel’s nose under the tent…



This seemed like as good a place as any to post this without starting anew thread

As the new bumper sticker on my car says;
"Take away our guns, liberty and rule of law; Socialism will protect us!"

[Spang]

As the new bumper sticker on my car says;
"Take away our guns, liberty and rule of law; Socialism will protect us!"

No one's going to take away your guns.

[sojourner]

No one's going to take away your guns.

Let's all be thankful that they are letting us keep our guns, who cares about liberty and the rule of law.

[Wyoming Dem]

No one's going to take away your guns.
Damn straight...those of us who are, according to Obama, "bitter, gun-totin', bible thumping (for me personally, it's thumping bible toters...) rural morons who "cling" to our religion (have no idea where I fit in there) and our guns in "uncertain" times are a wee bit unlikely to turn the guns over when the Obama Goon Squad (sorry...could not resist) comes calling asking for gun donations. Personally, I would LOVE to see Obama go after the gun owners...it would be the most interesting of times and political suicide for any Democratic Senator or Congressperson from any rural area who voted for it. Now there is a "Reality Show" sure to score boffo ratings.

[Spang]

Let's all be thankful that they are letting us keep our guns, who cares about liberty and the rule of law.

No one's taking that either. Bush tried but failed.

[devildog]

I refer here to Obama’s plan for “preventive detentions.” If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in “prolonged detention.” Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama’s shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.


Anyone see that movie Minority Report with Tom Cruise?

[Suzan]

I refer here to Obama’s plan for “preventive detentions.” If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in “prolonged detention.” Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama’s shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.

In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.

Did those of you who think this is okay read the article?

How serious is Obama about this plan? When and how would it go into effect?

I saw Minority Report. Great movie, but nothing you could ever imagine as reality. :eek: :eek:

[UKSocialist]

As the new bumper sticker on my car says;
"Take away our guns, liberty and rule of law; Socialism will protect us!"

I love how the US right wing just throws around the word socialism like it’s inherently evil, I bet half of them don’t even understand what socialism is.

[The_Basseteer]

I love how the US right wing just throws around the word socialism like it’s inherently evil, I bet half of them don’t even understand what socialism is.
Incremental, creeping fascism/communism.

[Spang]

Incremental, creeping fascism/communism.

It's impossible to have fascism and communism at the same time.

[sojourner]

It's impossible to have fascism and communism at the same time.

I agree. But many countries that started out communist or endeavoring to become communist ended fascist states.

[The_Basseteer]

It's impossible to have fascism and communism at the same time.

If they both end up with a totalitarian government, which is where we're headed, what's the difference?

[mavfin]

If they both end up with a totalitarian government, which is where we're headed, what's the difference?

True, and here's an example:

In WWII, there really wasn't *that much* difference between Stalin's and Hitler's regimes, except that Stalin adapted to setbacks a lot better, and waited till the other attacked first.

As far as allying with Stalin, Winston Churchill said this to justify it: "if Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons"

[Spang]

If they both end up with a totalitarian government, which is where we're headed, what's the difference?

Did Rush Limbaugh tell you that?

[sojourner]

If they both end up with a totalitarian government, which is where we're headed, what's the difference?

Isn't fascism by definition totalitarian? If it isn't it should be.