Obama Issues Executive Order Institutionalizing Indefinite D

[turk]

I think you can take what they say and compare it to how they go about doing what they said. Otherwise there's hardly anything to measure. With Obama, the "yes we can" guy, it was practically assumed everything was going to be great in some less-than-certain timeframe. I think there is a lot of projection and ideology at work, and very little pragmatism, except for political expediency. Look at what he did when he had his majority in congress. The health care bill was ram-rodded through. It was Christmas Eve if I'm not mistaken. "We'll see what's in it after we pass it". Voila. Political success, for the time being. Yet, last I heard several more waivers to the law were recently handed out in Pelosi's district, to upscale businesses and corporations. That makes well over 1,000 waivers now. Mostly corporations who don't wanna foot the bill. Well, what's gonna happen? This kind of political game is sausage being made in the dark. No regular guy out here like me knows what's going on really. And now, the majority is gone. So what happened to the bi-partisan Obama administration? I never saw it. What about the campaign speech where "we can look back and tell our grandchildren this was the time the rise of the oceans began to slow". What a load of B.S.. See what we are saying? Not talking points. Reality. What's your "talking points"? You don't have those? We are holding this bunk up to the daylight.

[ruckman101]

Republicans have rebuffed every effort at bipartisanship offered.


neal

[turk]

Next on my list of easy targets: the B.S. we heard about the terrible oil companies' subsidies. Ya' know where you got the gas to drive your VW to your job or to the Cascades to get away from it all. But wait, let's open drilling again on the Atlantic and Alaska to keep those gas prices from skyrocketing now. Obama needs to go. He can't keep his story straight. He never had a straight story in the first place. But I'll discuss this. That will be shooting fish in a barrel.

[Amskeptic]

Bush was in office when 911 hit, and when the economy crashed, were those his fault? no. Clinton was in office when we had all the money we could have needed, but was that a direct result of anything he did? no.

No, sorry . . . diplomatic-ese does the discussion no justice. There is compelling documentation that the Bush Administration refused to listen to the outgoing Clinton Administration's warnings regarding a potential plane-driven terrorist attack. We cannot let that truth just disappear under whitewash convenience. Likewise, Clinton's triangulation was political mastery that allowed a totally unexpected consensus to occur that helped us generate surpluses via sensible tax increases and welfare reform (a third-rail issue he managed to negotiate effectively) that both Gore and Clinton wanted to use to shore up Social Security. These are important facts that should not be subsumed by this diplomatic mush that "both parties/ex-Presidents suck equally". No. There are contrasts even in the Age of Corporate Pillage. Mommy and daddy do not love you equally.
Colin

[turk]

Bush was in office when 911 hit, and when the economy crashed, were those his fault? no. Clinton was in office when we had all the money we could have needed, but was that a direct result of anything he did? no.

No, sorry . . . diplomatic-ese does the discussion no justice. There is compelling documentation that the Bush Administration refused to listen to the outgoing Clinton Administration's warnings regarding a potential plane-driven terrorist attack. We cannot let that truth just disappear under whitewash convenience. Likewise, Clinton's triangulation was political mastery that allowed a totally unexpected consensus to occur that helped us generate surpluses via sensible tax increases and welfare reform (a third-rail issue he managed to negotiate effectively) that both Gore and Clinton wanted to use to shore up Social Security. These are important facts that should not be subsumed by this diplomatic mush that "both parties/ex-Presidents suck equally". No. There are contrasts even in the Age of Corporate Pillage. Mommy and daddy do not love you equally.
Colin

Clinton's triangulation is what created the surplus? I would like to hear your back-up argument supporting this winged claim. Especially since it was "totally unexpected consensus". Is it fair to ask for a little elaboration on that, or too specific?
So, if you are considering banning me, (which I don't think, considering I think you are an intelligent guy), please make it clear why. That's all I ask.

[Lanval]

Bush was in office when 911 hit, and when the economy crashed, were those his fault? no. Clinton was in office when we had all the money we could have needed, but was that a direct result of anything he did? no.

No, sorry . . . diplomatic-ese does the discussion no justice. There is compelling documentation that the Bush Administration refused to listen to the outgoing Clinton Administration's warnings regarding a potential plane-driven terrorist attack. We cannot let that truth just disappear under whitewash convenience. Likewise, Clinton's triangulation was political mastery that allowed a totally unexpected consensus to occur that helped us generate surpluses via sensible tax increases and welfare reform (a third-rail issue he managed to negotiate effectively) that both Gore and Clinton wanted to use to shore up Social Security. These are important facts that should not be subsumed by this diplomatic mush that "both parties/ex-Presidents suck equally". No. There are contrasts even in the Age of Corporate Pillage. Mommy and daddy do not love you equally.
Colin

Clinton's triangulation is what created the surplus? I would like to hear your back-up argument supporting this winged claim. Especially since it was "totally unexpected consensus". Is it fair to ask for a little elaboration on that, or too specific?
So, if you are considering banning me, (which I don't think, considering I think you are an intelligent guy), please make it clear why. That's all I ask.

The general consensus both at the time of his presidency, and in the years following by historical presidential observers, is that Clinton effectively moved to the center-left, co-opted a series of Republican platforms and managed to work effectively with the Republicans after the country told him to settle down in the 94 elections.

I've pointed out elsewhere recently that the defining characteristic of successful administration in the American experiment hinges upon intelligent educated men willing to take a stand on some issues and compromise on others. Clinton's willingness to listen/work with the Republicans (to be fair, after 94 he didn't have much choice) on things they valued enabled him to get more done than other presidents. Not all of it good to be sure, but much more than other presidents.

Colin, I agree that not all presidents are equal; in doing test prep for the high school US History stuff, most books devote a paragraph or so to Harding, Coolidge and Hoover ~ do nothing presidents who stood by while private business and individuals ran the country's economy into the iceberg that was stock market speculation. FDR, on the other hand, merits pages and pages to understand how he changed the country and what effect those changes had on America, then and now.

Roosevelt tried some sneaky stuff (Pack the Supreme Court!) but he did a lot of good too. Hard to see how Social Security is a bad thing in concept, though mismanaged by the gov't to be sure.

Ultimately my point to Steve was that while Obama has made a bad choice here from the ideological perspective, it doesn't follow that it's a bad choice. I remember when Bush Sr. took a fall in part because he raised taxes after he said he wouldn't, but I also give Bush Sr. real credit for doing that. He did what the country needed, NOT what he said he'd do when he had the luxury of speaking without the requirement to act. It's that second half ~ the doing part, that tends to bring men towards the center. And in that context, I'm not sure that I'm willing to excoriate Obama for not closing Gitmo. Sometimes, you're just choosing the best of the bad answers ~ maybe this is one of those times.

L.

[steve74baywin]

This center and compromise you keep speaking of Lanvil is what I call the bidding of the ruling elite. This continual shift from what the people want and what the politicians promise to some other thing you state they found out was needed, is doing what those really in power want. It is what I call his advisors and cabinet members that come from the CFR and Trilateral Commission which actually run the show.

Clinton said his mentor was History Professor Carol Quigley. Carol Quigley was a follower of Cecil Rhodes. Obama and most of the Democratic Party leaders are also followers of Cecil Rhodes and or Rhodes Scholars.
Cecil Rhodes stated that nothing matters if you didn't get in power, he taught that you had to do and say whatever it took to get in power because nothing mattered unless you got in power. Once in power you then do what you want even if contrary to what you said. Study the teachings of Cecil Rhodes.
Now that I remembered the above, I now put more odds that Obama lied.

[Amskeptic]

This center and compromise you keep speaking of Lanvil is what I call the bidding of the ruling elite. This continual shift from what the people want and what the politicians promise to some other thing you state they found out was needed, is doing what those really in power want. It is what I call his advisors and cabinet members that come from the CFR and Trilateral Commission which actually run the show.

Clinton said his mentor was History Professor Carol Quigley. Carol Quigley was a follower of Cecil Rhodes. Obama and most of the Democratic Party leaders are also followers of Cecil Rhodes and or Rhodes Scholars.
Cecil Rhodes stated that nothing matters if you didn't get in power, he taught that you had to do and say whatever it took to get in power because nothing mattered unless you got in power. Once in power you then do what you want even if contrary to what you said. Study the teachings of Cecil Rhodes.
Now that I remembered the above, I now put more odds that Obama lied.

I refuse to be painted into the above logic chain. It is insulting.

Here's an equally insane construction:
George Bush said he was a Christian. Christians follow the literalist interpretation of the Bible. The Bible taught to slay your disobedient children. Therefore George Bush and all Christians are baby-killing terrorists. Study the teachings of the Bible.

Bush lied to go to war. Many others, Rumsfeld and Powell, followed. There WAS a profiteering agenda underneath. Thousands and thousands died as a result. That is documented. So what documented evidence do you have on Obama? What would be his agenda?
Colin

[steve74baywin]

I refuse to be painted into the above logic chain. It is insulting.

That is documented. So what documented evidence do you have on Obama? What would be his agenda?
Colin

Well, this very post is about one of those things. Obama was going to close the gitmo, stop torturing, let the people go...BTW, I believe torturing is still done, just that now we ship them to another country.
But let's see, he went opposite on the above from what he promised. This action is more in line with Bush, the CFR, the Trilateral commission, PNAC. Seems like he is doing what the big money power players want, instead of what he told us.
He was eluding to bringing the troops home, he has done the opposite.
He has bailed out and given money to top corporations?????????????????????????
I thought that was a nasty repub idea, I thought the dems tax those corps more and gave money to the people?
Free Health Care for all, yeah right, small business being forced to pay for insurance, be fined or go to jail.
I think there is plenty to show he did not do what he said on the campaign trail, but he has kept right inline with the BS that Bush was doing.
What has he actually done that he said on the campaign trail?

[Lanval]

This center and compromise you keep speaking of Lanvil is what I call the bidding of the ruling elite.

Well, I won't disagree that there is more than one way to characterize the gov't. When I was an undergrad many years ago at the University of Oregon, I took US gov't as a required course. Ah, but here's the kicker. It was taught by a visiting professor from mainland China. So the entire theme of the class was:

"Democracy serves ONLY the needs/desires of the wealthy"

The problem that I had with that was this: What gov't doesn't work that way?! Is the Soviet/Cuban/Chinese Communist model better? 16th century Absolute Monarchy?

*******************************

If you want to ascribe simple greed/duplicity to Obama, go ahead. To me, that's overly simplistic. But even if it's not, what's the solution? All gov'ts are run by people, and people are the problem. Your Libertarian beliefs about the nature of the individual are way off. We've had libertarian gov't ~ it's called what happened BEFORE we had gov't. Without any ruling elite, the strong man forces his will on others. I've studied the development of our gov't from it's origins in the near east, as well as eastern philosophies as they pertain to Chinese and Japanese governing policy (they don't operate within a Christian milieu, so their strategies differ in goals and terms). Everywhere you look in history, people are banding together to protect themselves from the strong and the cruel. If the gov't is corrupt, fine; it's still less, LESS bad than what would happen without it.

Like technology, gov't isn't inherently bad. As with technology, the problem with gov't is people and their choices. I don't see how another form of gov't is going to change that.

L.

[turk]

I refuse to be painted into the above logic chain. It is insulting.

That is documented. So what documented evidence do you have on Obama? What would be his agenda?
Colin

Well, this very post is about one of those things. Obama was going to close the gitmo, stop torturing, let the people go...BTW, I believe torturing is still done, just that now we ship them to another country.
But let's see, he went opposite on the above from what he promised. This action is more in line with Bush, the CFR, the Trilateral commission, PNAC. Seems like he is doing what the big money power players want, instead of what he told us.
He was eluding to bringing the troops home, he has done the opposite.
He has bailed out and given money to top corporations?????????????????????????
I thought that was a nasty repub idea, I thought the dems tax those corps more and gave money to the people?
Free Health Care for all, yeah right, small business being forced to pay for insurance, be fined or go to jail.
I think there is plenty to show he did not do what he said on the campaign trail, but he has kept right inline with the BS that Bush was doing.
What has he actually done that he said on the campaign trail?

Excellent post. 5 stars. I can't wait to hear what the response is.

[turk]

This center and compromise you keep speaking of Lanvil is what I call the bidding of the ruling elite.

Well, I won't disagree that there is more than one way to characterize the gov't. When I was an undergrad many years ago at the University of Oregon, I took US gov't as a required course. Ah, but here's the kicker. It was taught by a visiting professor from mainland China. So the entire theme of the class was:

"Democracy serves ONLY the needs/desires of the wealthy"

The problem that I had with that was this: What gov't doesn't work that way?! Is the Soviet/Cuban/Chinese Communist model better? 16th century Absolute Monarchy?

*******************************

If you want to ascribe simple greed/duplicity to Obama, go ahead. To me, that's overly simplistic. But even if it's not, what's the solution? All gov'ts are run by people, and people are the problem. Your Libertarian beliefs about the nature of the individual are way off. We've had libertarian gov't ~ it's called what happened BEFORE we had gov't. Without any ruling elite, the strong man forces his will on others. I've studied the development of our gov't from it's origins in the near east, as well as eastern philosophies as they pertain to Chinese and Japanese governing policy (they don't operate within a Christian milieu, so their strategies differ in goals and terms). Everywhere you look in history, people are banding together to protect themselves from the strong and the cruel. If the gov't is corrupt, fine; it's still less, LESS bad than what would happen without it.

Like technology, gov't isn't inherently bad. As with technology, the problem with gov't is people and their choices. I don't see how another form of gov't is going to change that.

L.

I would agree with what you seem to be saying, but having had discussions flop with you almost all the time, I still think the compromise is weighted heavier to your love of government (relative to mine and Steve's loathing for it) see this video which I thought makes a better compromise: http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment

[steve74baywin]

Well, I won't disagree that there is more than one way to characterize the gov't. When I was an undergrad many years ago at the University of Oregon, I took US gov't as a required course. Ah, but here's the kicker. It was taught by a visiting professor from mainland China. So the entire theme of the class was:

"Democracy serves ONLY the needs/desires of the wealthy"

The problem that I had with that was this: What gov't doesn't work that way?! Is the Soviet/Cuban/Chinese Communist model better? 16th century Absolute Monarchy?


If you want to ascribe simple greed/duplicity to Obama, go ahead. To me, that's overly simplistic.
L.

Thanks for your post, interesting. My wheels are turning in an attempt to reply.
I can see where a democracy leads to that, and the others you mention obviously (excerpt Libertarian, will cover later), I don't know if there are other ways it leads to serving the wealthy, but the way I think it has in this country is the Collectivism vs Individualism argument. That argument in short is this. If you just honor individual rights there is no need for groups to get any laws, etc. IE, the group is nothing more than people and if you are protecting each persons rights, everyone in the group still has his rights protected. But when Collectivism is done, people fight for laws to aid there group, and this erodes away at the individuals rights and ends up counter productive. Many of us also say those with money can influence via TV and by supporting politicians to get groups to let them make more laws, and more laws, so this is where the wealthy end up getting served.

I don't agree with you on the Libertarian/limited gov part. For one I don't think it ever really has had a chance, about as close to that would be right after the constitution. I also think it is the best defense against the wealthy running a government. This form of government didn't exist as the form of gov when there was no gov.
Why I think Libertarian/very limited gov is best.
If a gov is set up to protect individual freedoms and liberty, to protect people from being hurt, killed, or stolen from, and not much else. Then how can this serve the rich? If no laws are ever to be added that stack the cards either way, if money isn't forced from some to help others, how can this be a gov serving the rich? Granted their will still be richer people, but they wouldn't have the govs help in doing this. People would learn to be more able to live an exist without being at the mercy of a few fat cats in town.
Each person, although the task would be great, would be able to work towards wealth if he wanted, the only things hindering him would be natural things already in place, not laws, rules, regulations, tax codes, etc, etc. These things created by gov only makes things harder. To attempt to do any work/business outside of being employed becomes very tough because the time and money needed due to laws makes in almost impossible in some cases. With a limited gov you would have the natural obstacles only, resources, time, your skill, ability, desire, etc. Not testing, certifications, workmans comp ins, auto ins, liability ins, business license, etc, etc. What could the wealthy do? It would be a waste of their money to get Politician in office, he couldn't make any laws to favor them. He could try to influence via TV, but couldn't get people to vote for laws that only enslave. The wealthy couldn't use the gov for help, they could make things hard for us other ways. To continue in that direction would depend on how we switched or went to that form of government. Certain people could currently own corporations and land of value, so that is where we would have it tough at first. But each person needs to learn to live as free and independent from such things anyway. Utilize the goods produced by big corps, but don't let your livelyhood become dependent on it.

[Lanval]

. If you just honor individual rights there is no need for groups to get any laws, etc. IE, the group is nothing more than people and if you are protecting each persons rights, everyone in the group still has his rights protected.

I would argue that this assumption is the problem. That's a very BIG "if" you've shoehorned in there. Is there anything in your experience to suggest that everyone is willing to operate ethically and fairly according to the law of the land? If so, then I think you must not have met very many people.

When you suggested I look at Cecil Rhodes (now on my list of reading), I was thinking you ought to read Locke and Hobbes. Let it suffice to say, people are the problem. Libertarians hang their hat upon the notion that everyone will play by the rules. They won't ~ we know it, 'cause we see it every day. Heinlein made this argument in The Stainless Steel Rat years ago, and it remains true. The issue is never the tool; it's always the user who wields it. In the hands of one man a tool may save a life; in another, take a life. The tool is innocent, the man is not.

******************

As for the period after the constitution, I suggest you re-read the Federalist papers and other writings around that time. The only people who could vote were rich, white landowners. The system was far more angled in favor of the wealthy then that it is now. Whether they took advantage of it? Well, that's why we revere the Founding Father's isn't it? Their willingness to forgo self-interest in favor of the needs of the many. That right there puts the lie to your claims. The problem isn't the system, it's the people running it. If you have good people, the everything is fine, regardless of the system. If you have bad people, everything is not fine, regardless of the system.

L.

[Amskeptic]

The issue is never the tool; it's always the user who wields it.

Well, that's why we revere the Founding Father's isn't it? Their willingness to forgo self-interest in favor of the needs of the many. That right there puts the lie to your claims. The problem isn't the system, it's the people running it. If you have good people, the everything is fine, regardless of the system. If you have bad people, everything is not fine, regardless of the system.

L.

Thank-you . . . there you go.
I love this government, this sapling of an experiment in representative democracy that PREceded the twisted choking vines of subsequent economic domination. Yet, I'd be declared all sorts of stupid things while I was trying to flesh out more subtle angles.