Options

First 100 Days: Day 9 - Of Cocktails and Cocksuckers

1235768

Posts

  • Options
    HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Dear Antonin Scalia,

    Please die now.

    Hachface on
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    We committed war crimes because of these people. They were our democratically elected leaders and they committed war crimes.

    They have to be prosecuted. We're a rogue nation right now.

    Governments do shitty things, that doesn't make them a "rogue nation". Unless I'm mistaken people still trade with us, because if they stopped we'd fall apart then they'd never get the debt we owe them back.

    War crimes are different. Our former President cannot leave the country without being arrested and we're not willing to arrest him. What exactly do we call that, if not a rogue nation?
    Wiki wrote:
    Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.
    Wiki wrote:
    In virtually all international foreign policy circles, rogue states are considered to be those nations utterly ruled by individuals (rather than subject to a popular electoral process) and whose legitimacy, intentions, and notions of the process of legitimate succession (if any) is highly suspect.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Or Jonathan Turley (again, no wacky liberal, testified at Clinton's impeachment against Clinton) on Rachel Maddow's show the other night:

    Jonathan Turley: Most certainly. The status of George Bush is not that different from Augusto Pinochet. They've both been accused of running a torture program. Outside of this country, there is not this ambiguity about what to do about a war crime. There are four treaties that make this an international violation. So if you go abroad, and try to travel, most people abroad are going to view you not as "former President George Bush" -- they're going to view you as a current war criminal.

    Rachel Maddow: And they're going to view us as an outlaw regime for not arresting him on our own soil.

    Jonathan Turley: I think so, unfortunately. A lot is at stake.

    So "outlaw regime" instead of "rogue state." I guess. Seems to me to be the same connotation.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    But they won't treat us like an outlaw regime or a rogue state or whatever you want to call it, because they can't afford to do so. Will it be a black mark on our record and cause people to treat us with distaste for some time? Probably. But it still matters more what Americans think, what is practical and politically feasible and constructive to do right now.

    Let me put it another way. Do you think those nations would be happier with us if Obama blew his presidency fighting about shit like this and another Republican took the White House in four years? I'm not saying that it would happen, but I certainly think it would increase the likelihood. Don't be so naive as to think that just because the American people disapprove of Bush's presidency, that means they think he should be put on trial for war crimes. I think I've even seen a poll to this effect (I'm sorry, I don't have a link handy at the moment).

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    CoinageCoinage Heaviside LayerRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    We committed war crimes because of these people. They were our democratically elected leaders and they committed war crimes.

    They have to be prosecuted. We're a rogue nation right now.

    Governments do shitty things, that doesn't make them a "rogue nation". Unless I'm mistaken people still trade with us, because if they stopped we'd fall apart then they'd never get the debt we owe them back.

    War crimes are different. Our former President cannot leave the country without being arrested and we're not willing to arrest him. What exactly do we call that, if not a rogue nation?
    Who is going to arrest him?

    Coinage on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    No one asks that poll question. The media thinks it's an awful idea because they worship at the altar of "bipartisanship." Specifically, Democrats caving and governing like Republicans, because their frame of reference has been Reagan for 25 years. That might be changing as they fucking love them so Obama. Even more Sasha and Malia, which is silly but whatever. Anyway, the media never includes that question in their polls so the only major people who commission national public opinion polls on such a thing would be DailyKos, to be honest. As far as I know, they haven't. We might start seeing such a thing in a few months.

    Now, there are a ton of reasons I think we have to prosecute. And politically it should be done with an independent special prosecutor with subpoena power. Ideally someone with a reputation as a non-partisan incorruptible bulldog, which is why I suggested Pat Fitzgerald earlier. The reasons are thus:

    1) First and foremost: no one is above the law. No more of this "if the President does it, it's legal by definition" bullshit. It's obviously hypocritical bullshit because the same people who say that cared a great deal when Clinton lied under oath. I think the largest problem this country has generally at the moment is that the government isn't viewed as an institution to even think about trusting. Part of that is the fact that the government has been incredibly corrupt and routinely breaks laws without consequences and has for decades. It's a larger, more general problem than the specifics of the current economic crisis.

    2) There is the issue of America's standing in the world to consider. Will they treat us as they would a dictatorship like Mugabe in Zimbabwe or a group actively committing genocide like the regime in Khartoum? No. But it's harder to get respect and help for your goals when the people of foreign countries think you're an outlaw. We want more NATO help in Afghanistan, for example. It would probably be easier for us to get that help if we at least pretend we give a shit about international law and prosecute Cheney, Addinton, Yoo, and yeah maybe Bush like we're obligated to under our treaties. Alternately, do you think that the Arab world (and I'm not referring to the dictators we prop up for our own interests like the House of Saud here, but the Arab street) will really trust us to be an honest broker for peace between Israel and Palestine if the people responsible for the abduction and torture of innocent Arabs are allowed to go free and make a ton of money on the lecture/consultancy/honorary board member circuit? Of course not.

    3) There's the straight moral issue to consider. As it stands, we tortured people. I don't get how this isn't a more abhorrent concept to people. How can we even pretend to lead the world on protecting human rights when we tortured people. You can't lead if you can't act in good faith.

    I absolutely don't care about the politics of this. I don't know if it would be popular. I'm pretty sure the press would hate it at first. Though it'd be a hell of a trial to cover for them. It would probably be pretty partisan. But in my mind, this is the one issue where sacrificing national unity is worth it. This country has to return to being ruled by laws and not men. If the entirety of the Bush Administration gets off entirely and is never punished, the lesson is obvious and it is that the law doesn't apply to the President. Nixon's pardon came dangerously close to that precedent and if there's not even an investigation when we tortured people? And the President admitted we tortured people? And the Vice President damn near bragged about it? And a member of the President's administration said we couldn't prosecute people who we think mean us harm because we tortured people?

    That precedent can never be allowed to be set.
    I'm a bit rabid about the torture thing, if you haven't noticed. It drives me nuts that it didn't get those assholes impeached. But "impeachment was off the table." Thanks, Madame Speaker.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2009
    variant wrote: »
    I'd imagine his first term would look something this:

    Revitalizing the Economy
    Ending the War in Iraq
    Providing Health Care for All

    I remember seeing this exact post back on a BBS in 1992..

    FyreWulff on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    variant wrote: »
    I'd imagine his first term would look something this:

    Revitalizing the Economy
    Ending the War in Iraq
    Providing Health Care for All

    I remember seeing this exact post back on a BBS in 1992..

    The war in Iraq ended before the campaign started, didn't it? Or am I insane?

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    variant wrote: »
    I'd imagine his first term would look something this:

    Revitalizing the Economy
    Ending the War in Iraq
    Providing Health Care for All

    I remember seeing this exact post back on a BBS in 1992..

    The war in Iraq ended before the campaign started, didn't it? Or am I insane?

    You are correct.

    It does put into perspective, though, how much of a disappointment President Clinton was, partly due to his own mistakes and partly due to the misfortune of suffering through the Republican revolution. He was only able to go 1 for 2, even with two terms.

    It also demonstrates how much of a failure GWB was. He recreated problems we had already solved.

    Matrijs on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Coinage wrote: »
    We committed war crimes because of these people. They were our democratically elected leaders and they committed war crimes.

    They have to be prosecuted. We're a rogue nation right now.

    Governments do shitty things, that doesn't make them a "rogue nation". Unless I'm mistaken people still trade with us, because if they stopped we'd fall apart then they'd never get the debt we owe them back.

    War crimes are different. Our former President cannot leave the country without being arrested and we're not willing to arrest him. What exactly do we call that, if not a rogue nation?
    Who is going to arrest him?

    Yea I'm curious on this as well, it's news to me.

    I don't see any first world country arresting Bush if he visited. He probably won't though, what with the threat of things more dangerous than shoes hitting him and much reduced security contingent.

    override367 on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Coinage wrote: »
    We committed war crimes because of these people. They were our democratically elected leaders and they committed war crimes.

    They have to be prosecuted. We're a rogue nation right now.

    Governments do shitty things, that doesn't make them a "rogue nation". Unless I'm mistaken people still trade with us, because if they stopped we'd fall apart then they'd never get the debt we owe them back.

    War crimes are different. Our former President cannot leave the country without being arrested and we're not willing to arrest him. What exactly do we call that, if not a rogue nation?
    Who is going to arrest him?

    Yea I'm curious on this as well, it's news to me.

    I don't see any first world country arresting Bush if he visited. He probably won't though, what with the threat of things more dangerous than shoes hitting him and much reduced security contingent.

    Let's say the fear of being arrested. The French, Germans, or Russians would be the most likely though. Russia to embarrass the US, the other two for slightly more idealistic reasons. The threat is there though. As far as I know Rumsfeld still has never left the country after his resignation.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2009
    Nobody is getting prosecuted because there's just as much dirt on Democrats.

    All it will do is start a viscous cycle.

    FyreWulff on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Nobody is getting prosecuted because there's just as much dirt on Democrats.

    All it will do is start a viscous cycle.

    And this is of course the real problem which I have heretofore not mentioned. Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller, and Hoyer are culpable too. They knew about it and said nothing. One of the rare good points I've ever heard her make was made by Dana Perino the other day in response to Pelosi being open to prosecutions: she said she'd be fascinated to see if Pelosi took the stand because she was briefed in and could reasonably be found to be an accessory. Pelosi would likely have to plead the fifth.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Oh the other thing he should do is offer immunity to a bunch of low level CIA/military types who may have carried out their orders. I just want the political leaders.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    And the deconstruction of Gitmo begins.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html

    That didn't take long at all.

    Taramoor on
  • Options
    SamSam Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Scooter wrote: »
    robothero wrote: »
    Clearly legalizing pot is the largest issue facing this country right now.

    It'd certainly be a lot easier than fixing the economy or Iraq.

    Other than the getting political support part.

    One aspect people overlook is that the US has basically shaped the anti-drug efforts of much of the world. Certainly the world black market for it exists as a result of countries following suit when the U.S first classified and banned it. There would be a rift in terms of international anti drug measures that any politician would want to avoid.

    Sam on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Sam wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    robothero wrote: »
    Clearly legalizing pot is the largest issue facing this country right now.

    It'd certainly be a lot easier than fixing the economy or Iraq.

    Other than the getting political support part.

    One aspect people overlook is that the US has basically shaped the anti-drug efforts of much of the world. Certainly the world black market for it exists as a result of countries following suit when the U.S first classified and banned it. There would be a rift in terms of international anti drug measures that any politician would want to avoid.

    On the other hand, legalization + a new tax on the sale of it would save/create between 14 and 42 billion dollars annually.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    SamSam Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Sam wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    robothero wrote: »
    Clearly legalizing pot is the largest issue facing this country right now.

    It'd certainly be a lot easier than fixing the economy or Iraq.

    Other than the getting political support part.

    One aspect people overlook is that the US has basically shaped the anti-drug efforts of much of the world. Certainly the world black market for it exists as a result of countries following suit when the U.S first classified and banned it. There would be a rift in terms of international anti drug measures that any politician would want to avoid.

    On the other hand, legalization + a new tax on the sale of it would save/create between 14 and 42 billion dollars annually.

    politicians don't give a fuck, alienating a cross-partisan voting segment+awkwardness with other countries in existing drug policy agreements outweigh that figure

    hell if i were Barack I wouldn't legalize it, it would cost a lot of political capital very fast. a lot of voters are parents that don't want their kids smoking pot. Unfortunately the majority of the United States electorate is descended from cultures that feature brewing or distilling alcohol and not marijuana, so it's not going to become a civil rights issue either.

    Sam on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Sam wrote: »
    Sam wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    robothero wrote: »
    Clearly legalizing pot is the largest issue facing this country right now.

    It'd certainly be a lot easier than fixing the economy or Iraq.

    Other than the getting political support part.

    One aspect people overlook is that the US has basically shaped the anti-drug efforts of much of the world. Certainly the world black market for it exists as a result of countries following suit when the U.S first classified and banned it. There would be a rift in terms of international anti drug measures that any politician would want to avoid.

    On the other hand, legalization + a new tax on the sale of it would save/create between 14 and 42 billion dollars annually.

    politicians don't give a fuck, alienating a cross-partisan voting segment+awkwardness with other countries in existing drug policy agreements outweigh that figure

    hell if i were Barack I wouldn't legalize it, it would cost a lot of political capital very fast. a lot of voters are parents that don't want their kids smoking pot.

    Yeah, in this climate I wouldn't bother. From a pure policy perspective though it's retarded.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    L. KillingtonL. Killington Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    He doesn't like ice cream

    So I don't think that's gonna be one of the things they talk about

    L. Killington on
  • Options
    SamSam Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Sam wrote: »
    Sam wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    robothero wrote: »
    Clearly legalizing pot is the largest issue facing this country right now.

    It'd certainly be a lot easier than fixing the economy or Iraq.

    Other than the getting political support part.

    One aspect people overlook is that the US has basically shaped the anti-drug efforts of much of the world. Certainly the world black market for it exists as a result of countries following suit when the U.S first classified and banned it. There would be a rift in terms of international anti drug measures that any politician would want to avoid.

    On the other hand, legalization + a new tax on the sale of it would save/create between 14 and 42 billion dollars annually.

    politicians don't give a fuck, alienating a cross-partisan voting segment+awkwardness with other countries in existing drug policy agreements outweigh that figure

    hell if i were Barack I wouldn't legalize it, it would cost a lot of political capital very fast. a lot of voters are parents that don't want their kids smoking pot.

    Yeah, in this climate I wouldn't bother. From a pure policy perspective though it's retarded.

    it is but it's necessitated by cultural factors like heritage and prejudice.

    a necessary evil, if you will. Large democracies tend to have a lot of these.

    Sam on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    This seems like a great place for this:
    An accounting of all of Obama's campaign promises, and their current status of complete-itude
    Tally currently stands at:
    * Promise Kept 2

    * Compromise 0

    * Promise Broken 0

    * Stalled 1

    * In the Works 12

    * No Action 495

    They even explain each promise, cite the source, and in the cases where there has been action of some sort, they explain what's going in as fair a way as possible.



    I plan on checking up once a week.

    We'll hold up our end big guy, here's hoping you hold up yours.

    Wow, that's a lot of promises to keep. Goddamn, all these websites. I'm not going to get over my Obama obession until he isn't president anymore, apparently. :(

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Taramoor wrote: »
    And the deconstruction of Gitmo begins.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/guantanamo.hearings/index.html

    That didn't take long at all.
    About 6 years longer than it needed to, though.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    Zen VulgarityZen Vulgarity What a lovely day for tea Secret British ThreadRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I gotta say

    It was pretty hilarious to see my professor scramble to put the stream of the inauguration up when I was in Constitutional Law.

    OH FUCK WHERE'S THE FUCKING AUDIO OUT GOD DAMNIT WE ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES BEFORE IT STARTS HOLY SHIT WHERE'S THE SWITCH

    Haha he's already dismantling Gitmo? He's a doer, that's for sure.

    Zen Vulgarity on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I gotta say

    It was pretty hilarious to see my professor scramble to put the stream of the inauguration up when I was in Constitutional Law.

    OH FUCK WHERE'S THE FUCKING AUDIO OUT GOD DAMNIT WE ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES BEFORE IT STARTS HOLY SHIT WHERE'S THE SWITCH

    Haha he's already dismantling Gitmo? He's a doer, that's for sure.

    Doer? I barely knew'er!

    I am so sorry.

    MKR on
  • Options
    Zen VulgarityZen Vulgarity What a lovely day for tea Secret British ThreadRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    I gotta say

    It was pretty hilarious to see my professor scramble to put the stream of the inauguration up when I was in Constitutional Law.

    OH FUCK WHERE'S THE FUCKING AUDIO OUT GOD DAMNIT WE ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES BEFORE IT STARTS HOLY SHIT WHERE'S THE SWITCH

    Haha he's already dismantling Gitmo? He's a doer, that's for sure.

    Doer? I barely knew'er!

    I am so sorry.

    I used to haul you in as a terrorist suspect and shove you into gitmo for saying something like that.

    God damnit now what am I gonna do.

    Zen Vulgarity on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    I gotta say

    It was pretty hilarious to see my professor scramble to put the stream of the inauguration up when I was in Constitutional Law.

    OH FUCK WHERE'S THE FUCKING AUDIO OUT GOD DAMNIT WE ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES BEFORE IT STARTS HOLY SHIT WHERE'S THE SWITCH

    Haha he's already dismantling Gitmo? He's a doer, that's for sure.

    Doer? I barely knew'er!

    I am so sorry.

    I used to haul you in as a terrorist suspect and shove you into gitmo for saying something like that.

    God damnit now what am I gonna do.

    Now you can haul people out of gitmo.

    MKR on
  • Options
    Zen VulgarityZen Vulgarity What a lovely day for tea Secret British ThreadRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I gotta say

    It was pretty hilarious to see my professor scramble to put the stream of the inauguration up when I was in Constitutional Law.

    OH FUCK WHERE'S THE FUCKING AUDIO OUT GOD DAMNIT WE ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES BEFORE IT STARTS HOLY SHIT WHERE'S THE SWITCH

    Haha he's already dismantling Gitmo? He's a doer, that's for sure.

    Doer? I barely knew'er!

    I am so sorry.

    I used to haul you in as a terrorist suspect and shove you into gitmo for saying something like that.

    God damnit now what am I gonna do.

    Now you can haul people out of gitmo.

    Yeah but that's no fun.

    God damn though. 495 promises?

    Was one of them "I promise not to eat paint" or something?

    Zen Vulgarity on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Wow, that's a lot of promises to keep. Goddamn, all these websites. I'm not going to get over my Obama obession until he isn't president anymore, apparently. :(
    He's fielding BushCo's grounders right now.

    Hopefully over the next day or so we'll see him get out the big stick and swing for the fences.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    This seems like a great place for this:
    An accounting of all of Obama's campaign promises, and their current status of complete-itude
    Tally currently stands at:
    * Promise Kept 2

    * Compromise 0

    * Promise Broken 0

    * Stalled 1

    * In the Works 12

    * No Action 495

    They even explain each promise, cite the source, and in the cases where there has been action of some sort, they explain what's going in as fair a way as possible.



    I plan on checking up once a week.

    We'll hold up our end big guy, here's hoping you hold up yours.

    That's pretty sweet. I usually end up disagreeing with a lot of these sorts of sites, but there should be more of them. For me, the biggest promise of the Obama administration is that there is some chance he will listen to and consider reasonable argument and criticism.
    I usually disagree with interpretation of data at sites that try really hard to be neutral, but so far this site seems fair and its good for the nation to take a long look at campaign promises

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    agoaj wrote: »
    TekDragon wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    At a minimum I want Obama to form some sort of committee to look into prosecuting Bush and Co. to keep the insane branch of the sane end of the political spectrum from going nuts.

    He'd rather make 90% of the country happy than pacify the 5% of extreme leftists who are going to hate him anyway for every day that goes by that doesn't have Venezuelan-esque nationalization.

    But we have to chase Batman!

    You're saying
    Jim Gordon wrote:
    He's the president that America deserves, but not the one it needs right now…and so we'll push him…because he can take it…because he's not our hero… he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector… A Dark Knight.

    [credits roll]

    But seriously, watching the inauguration was just as powerful and moving as I expected it to be. I'm glad there are sites out there tracking what he's said and what he's accomplished, not because he seems to need the scrutiny, but because I believe it has the potential to become something positive. We're so used to pointing out the flaws and failing of politicians, how nice would it be to have a 500 point list and essentially track positive progress?

    I guess the next 4/8 years will tell.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Options
    HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I am just going to say, thank you moniker for providing a thread to follow for my term paper at the end of the semester

    :^:

    Hakkekage on
    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    I am just going to say, thank you moniker for providing a thread to follow for my term paper at the end of the semester

    :^:

    That's exactly what I had in mind when I made it.
    shifty.gif




    :P

    moniker on
  • Options
    oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I'll be happy with that 'Promises' website as long as it can effectively make distinctions between actual promises broken by Obama, and things that Congress couldn't or wouldn't pass. I like the idea though.

    oldmanken on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    From the promises kept website:

    In the works - No. 502: Get his daughters a puppy

    I'm watching you Obama.

    Quid on
  • Options
    Zen VulgarityZen Vulgarity What a lovely day for tea Secret British ThreadRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I thought they already did that.

    Zen Vulgarity on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Nope.

    Fucker's stalling on his promises. Why can't anyone see that he's not as great as you think?

    Quid on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    He's a secret Cat-lover! Why can't anybody see that?

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    oldmanken wrote: »
    I'll be happy with that 'Promises' website as long as it can effectively make distinctions between actual promises broken by Obama, and things that Congress couldn't or wouldn't pass. I like the idea though.
    Politifact wrote:
    An important point: When we say a promise is broken, that is not necessarily a negative thing or a failure by Obama. The failure to enact a promise might simply reflect that priorities of the Congress or the American people have changed since he made the promise. Or it could indicate that Obama decided there were higher priorities.

    So 'Promise Kept' means 'he completely got it done', 'Compromise' means 'he had to scale back a bit, but still got the general idea accomplished', and 'Promise Broken' means 'it didn't get done at all, for whatever reason'.

    So, just taking one promise at random, #489:
    Seek more funding for transportation security

    "The Bush administration has invested only a small fraction of the $6 billion that transportation officials have said is necessary to implement needed security improvements. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that this critical hole in our homeland security network must be addressed."

    So if someone markets a teleportation device two years down the road and everyone immediately uses it and renders transportation security funding moot, this'll probably wind up as Promise Broken through no fault of Obama's. Just means it didn't get done is all.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    oldmanken wrote: »
    I'll be happy with that 'Promises' website as long as it can effectively make distinctions between actual promises broken by Obama, and things that Congress couldn't or wouldn't pass. I like the idea though.

    It does make that distinction. The "stalled" field is for promises stopped or compromised by congress. For example-The Company Tax Credit
    Congress balks at $3,000 tax credit per worker

    Updated: Sunday, January 18th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

    During the final stages of the campaign, Barack Obama proposed a number of economic measures intended to jump-start a sputtering economy. Among those was a tax credit for businesses to hire new workers; Obama proposed a $3,000 credit for every worker hired.

    "We've already lost three-quarters of a million jobs this year, and some experts say that unemployment may rise to 8 percent by the end of next year," Obama said at a rally in Toledo, Ohio, on Oct. 13, 2008. "We can't wait until then to start creating new jobs. That's why I'm proposing to give our businesses a new American jobs tax credit for each new employee they hire here in the United States over the next two years."

    But Congress didn't like the idea when it came time to write a stimulus bill in January 2009.

    "If you have a company and you're selling fewer shingles, $3,000 isn't going to get you to hire somebody when your sales are shrinking," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., at a press conference on Jan. 14, 2009.

    "So the basic view was, we need to do things to stimulate jobs on the tax cut side and on the business side, but that probably is not the best way to go. You don't get the most bang for the buck," he said, adding that the opposition was in the House and the Senate from both Democrats and Republicans.

    When the House Appropriations Committee released its plans for the stimulus bill a few days later on Jan. 16, the measure was not included. So we rate this promise Stalled. (If nothing changes before passage of the final bill, we expect we'll be moving this to Promise Broken.)

    Sources:

    Barack Obama campaign Web site, "A Rescue Plan for the Middle Class," speech, Oct. 13, 2008.

    Federal News Service, Press conference with Sen. Charles Schumer and others, Jan. 14, 2009 accessed via Nexis.

    U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, "The American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan," Jan. 16, 2009, accessed Jan. 18, 2009

    nightmarenny on
    Quire.jpg
This discussion has been closed.