I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869.
when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US?
Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times.
Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified.
By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was actually proposed by the Obama administration. In addition, Obama has extra-judicially murdered at least one American citizen and he launched Operation Fast and Furious without the permission or knowledge of the Mexican government. He has also ordered massive drone strikes in Pakistan.
Some of that is inaccurate: Americans had been held without trial before, such as Jose Padilla; also, gunwalking started under Bush, though it increased under Obama. Overall it's true, however, and Obama receives little criticism for this because it's awkward for both Democrats and Republicans to point it out.
I haven't heard of Jose Padilla, but either way, Obama supported and signed a law to make it legal.
Operation Wide Receiver under Bush was completely different and here's why: 1. Wide Receiver was conducted entirely with the permission and cooperation of the Mexican government. 2. The guns sold in Wide Receiver were rigorously tracked and almost all (if not all) of the weapons in Wide Receiver had been recovered. 3. Wide Receiver didn't result in the death of an American citizen, whereas Fast and Furious did; additionally (to my knowledge) there were no reported Mexicans who were killed under Wide Receiver either. 4. Wide Receiver was a very small and primarily gun-tracing operation, to trace where the weapons went; Fast and Furious was a large-scale arms trade gun-walking program. 5. Wide Receiver was a failure and all gun-walking operations had been ceased by Bush. Then Obama came along, knowing previous operations had failed, did it anyway.
I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869.
when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US?
Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times.
Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified.
By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama proposed the provisions be put in the NDAA in the first place. Then Obama defended the provisions after judges tried to strike it down.
On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote: [quote]
when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US?
Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times.
Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified.
By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama actually wrote in his signing statement that he didn't agree with the LIMITATIONS the law placed on his ability to detain Americans, and his Justice Department has fought against challenges to the law.
I don't have time to research this right now, but from what I remember the Republicans wanted to force military custody of terrorist suspects and the Obama administration fought against that. A few links:
I can't research this further at the moment, but Republicans clearly favored a harder line than Democrats both for the military detention of suspects and for indefinite detention. edit to answer Swazi above: go back to checking who voted in favor of the indefinite retention provision. Republicans supported it much more than Democrats. Are you ready to rail against Republicans?
On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote: [quote]
when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US?
Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times.
Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified.
By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama proposed the provisions be put in the NDAA in the first place. Then Obama defended the provisions after judges tried to strike it down.
The NDAA clause allowing for indefinite detention is a serious matter and should be treated as such. Linking to a Limbaugh YouTube video, Glenn Beck's website, and a Russia Today article is how to get those who don't know about it to dismiss it immediately.
Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times.
Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified.
By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama proposed the provisions be put in the NDAA in the first place. Then Obama defended the provisions after judges tried to strike it down.
The NDAA clause allowing for indefinite detention is a serious matter and should be treated as such. Linking to a Limbaugh YouTube video, Glenn Beck's website, and a Russia Today article is how to get those who don't know about it to dismiss it immediately.
Kinda what I was thinking. Their loss, because it IS important, but so many people will just pass it over because of the sources.
I urge anyone who doesn't know about it to look into it. The act can be interpreted to suspend your 4th through 8th amendment rights. And while I know it's easy to say, "we just won't do it in a bad way." that's a load of shit. If people are already finding way's to construe this in a negative way then when it's to the government's advantage they will construe it that way.
One of John Taylor's favorite pass times is blaming everything wrong with the economy on uncertainty (for example here and here) and blaming Obama for creating that uncertainty through government regulation, Obamacare, "short-termism", etc. In fact, he has become such a crank that he now thinks the best way to fix the economy isn't through economic policy (or even less of it), but by kicking Obama out.
Half-learned conservatives are always blaming the state of the economy on uncertainty caused by Obama (the other conservatives usually don't know a damn thing about economics, so they're completely incoherent on what's happening in the economy).
But the uncertainty index used in the studies Taylor cites is bad. They count keywords, like "uncertainty", that appear in a search of internet news articles, without any reference to context, e.g. "uncertainty is down". Krugman has recently shown that this index basically just correlates with economic weakness and the debt ceiling debacle anyway.
But I've noticed an even clearer way to see that this is just partisan nonsense. If you seriously think that uncertainty is the cause of the economic weakness, as opposed to say, weak aggregate demand due to household deleveraging and a bad (but slowly recovering) housing market, then electing Romney should crash the economy without him even doing anything. After all, no one has any certainty about what Romney is going to do. He says he'll cut tax rates by 20%, and make up for the loss revenue by closing loopholes. But he's refused to name a single loophole he will close. That's uncertainty. He says he'll increase spending on defense, give a massive tax cut, and still balance the budget. But he's refused to specify what he would cut from the budget (other than PBS). That's uncertainty.
Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible. That's uncertainty. And even if you believe it adds up (it doesn't), many people still believe it doesn't. That's uncertainty. Romney claims that he'll repeal Obamacare. But there's nothing to suggest that's even possible due to the ability of the Senate to filibuster. So claiming to repeal Obamacare adds uncertainty as businesses are uncertain on whether or not it can be done. Romney is known to be a serial flip-flopper. Even if you personally believe he has never changed his position on anything (actually, he has changed his position on virtually everything), and even if you believe his promises add up, the fact is a very large proportion of people, rightly, don't believe this, they are uncertain on what Romney's policies will truly be.
Under Romney, students would be uncertain about whether study loans will continue as current, businesses and households would be uncertain about what tax loopholes will be closed, the unemployed would be uncertain about whether their benefits will be reduced, sick people will be uncertain about whether they can get healthcare insurance, Wall Street will be uncertain on what regulatory regime will be implemented to replace Dodd-Frank.
If this uncertainty story is true, we should expect economic collapse if Romney wins, without him even doing anything at all. The uncertainty due to him not specifying what he would do, what tax loopholes will be closed, what government spending will be cut, etc., should crush the recovery. And the next time you conservatives claim that uncertainty is holding the economy back, you should stop being a hypocrite.
CAMBRIDGE – The United States is famous for its ability to innovate. Aspiring fiscal conservatives around the world thus might be interested in learning four tricks that American politicians commonly use when promising to cut taxes while simultaneously reducing budget deficits.
These are hard promises to keep, for the simple reason that a budget deficit equals government spending minus tax revenue. But, each of the four tricks has been refined over three decades. Indeed, they first acquired their colorful names in the early years of Ronald Reagan’s presidency: the “magic asterisk,” the “rosy scenario,” the Laffer hypothesis, and the “starve the beast” scenario. As shop-worn as these tricks are, voters and journalists still fall for them, so they remain useful tools for anyone posing as a fiscal conservative.
The first term was coined by Reagan’s budget director, David Stockman. Originally, it was an act of desperation, because the numbers in the 1981 budget plan did not add up. “We invented the ‘magic asterisk,’” Stockman wrote in The Triumph of Politics in 1986. “If we couldn’t find the savings in time – and we couldn’t – we would issue an IOU. We would call it ‘Future savings to be identified.’”
Ever since, the magic asterisk has become a familiar American device. Recent examples include the recommendation of the Simpson-Bowles commission – tasked in 2010 with charting a fiscal-consolidation path – to cut real spending growth by precise amounts, without saying where the cuts would be made. US presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s spending plans contain the same conjuring trick. So, too, his plan to eliminate enough tax expenditures to offset the $5 trillion in revenue lost from cutting marginal tax rates by 20%, while refusing to say which tax loopholes he would close.
As Election Day nears, the pressure on a candidate to be more specific grows. The conjurer thus resorts to the rosy scenario: since he cannot find enough tax loopholes to eliminate, he must claim that what he meant by closing the revenue gap was that stronger economic growth will bring in the additional revenue.
Here, Murray Weidenbaum, the chairman of Reagan’s first Council of Economic Advisers, deserves the credit for inventing what he called “perhaps my most lasting legacy.” In its early years, the Reagan administration forecast 5% income growth (twice the long-run average), in order to imply in its projections a boost to revenues big enough to make up for its many tax cuts. Since then, candidates of both major US political parties have relied on rosy scenarios.
Indeed, overly buoyant official growth forecasts are a fact of life in almost all of a sample of 33 countries, contributing to overly optimistic budget forecasts. European governments are particularly biased. From 1991 to 2010, for example, Italy forecast growth rates at the three-year horizon that were, on average, 2.3 percentage points above what was actually achieved.
In the Republican primaries last year, candidate Tim Pawlenty assumed a 5% growth rate to make his own plan work. He was all but laughed out of the race. Romney probably cannot get away with this sleight-of-hand, either. The press asks, “Why should we believe that the growth rate will magically accelerate just because you become president? Where will this GDP come from? It sounds like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.”
Right on cue, it is time for the famous Laffer hypothesis – the proposition, identified with the economist Arthur Laffer and “supply-side economics,” that reductions in tax rates are like magic beans: they so stimulate economic growth that total tax revenue (the tax rate times income) goes up rather than down.
One might think that the Romney campaign would not resurrect so discredited a trick. After all, two of his main economic advisers, Glenn Hubbard and Greg Mankiw, have both authored textbooks in which they argue that the Laffer hypothesis is incorrect as a description of US tax rates. Mankiw’s book, in its first edition, even called proponents of the hypothesis “charlatans.”
Each Republican presidential candidate since Reagan has had good economic advisers who disavow the Laffer hypothesis. Yet, time and again, the president (or candidate), his vice president (or running mate), and his political aides eventually rely on Laffer’s flawed argument. And they, not academic economists, formulate policy. Hubbard and Mankiw advised former President George W. Bush in his first term, when he cut taxes and transformed a record surplus into a record deficit.
The final trick, “starve the beast,” typically comes later, if and when the president has enacted his tax cuts and discovers that smoke and mirrors do not trump reality. He cannot find enough spending to cut (the magic asterisk has disappeared up the conjurer’s sleeve); the acceleration in GDP is nowhere to be seen (the rosy scenario having vanished); and tax revenues have not grown (no rabbit in the Laffer hat).
The audience is now told that losing tax revenue and widening the budget deficit was the plan all along. The performer explains that the deficit is all the fault of congress for not cutting spending and that the only way to tame the beast is to raise the budget deficit because “Congress can’t spend money it doesn’t have.” This trick never works either, of course. Congress can, in fact, spend money it doesn’t have, especially if the president has been quietly sending it budgets that call for just that.
By the time the crowd realizes that it has been conned, the magician has already pulled off the greatest trick of all: yet another audience that came to see the deficit shrink leaves the theater with the deficit bigger than before.
On October 24 2012 15:31 kwizach wrote: edit to answer Swazi above: go back to checking who voted in favor of the indefinite retention provision. Republicans supported it much more than Democrats. Are you ready to rail against Republicans?
I don't think he's capable of arguing at this level period. Why even bother.
Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times.
Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified.
By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama actually wrote in his signing statement that he didn't agree with the LIMITATIONS the law placed on his ability to detain Americans, and his Justice Department has fought against challenges to the law.
I don't have time to research this right now, but from what I remember the Republicans wanted to force military custody of terrorist suspects and the Obama administration fought against that. A few links:
I can't research this further at the moment, but Republicans clearly favored a harder line than Democrats both for the military detention of suspects and for indefinite detention. edit to answer Swazi above: go back to checking who voted in favor of the indefinite retention provision. Republicans supported it much more than Democrats. Are you ready to rail against Republicans?
The Democrats supported it wholeheartedly as well, they had complete control of the Senate and yet they all voted for it anyway. To answer your question, yes, I am willing to rail against ANYONE who is attacking our civil liberties, no matter what letter you have after your name.
Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times.
Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified.
By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama proposed the provisions be put in the NDAA in the first place. Then Obama defended the provisions after judges tried to strike it down.
The NDAA clause allowing for indefinite detention is a serious matter and should be treated as such. Linking to a Limbaugh YouTube video, Glenn Beck's website, and a Russia Today article is how to get those who don't know about it to dismiss it immediately.
What's wrong with Rush Limbaugh? He arguably does a better job representing both sides than anyone in the mainstream media does.
By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama actually wrote in his signing statement that he didn't agree with the LIMITATIONS the law placed on his ability to detain Americans, and his Justice Department has fought against challenges to the law.
I don't have time to research this right now, but from what I remember the Republicans wanted to force military custody of terrorist suspects and the Obama administration fought against that. A few links:
I can't research this further at the moment, but Republicans clearly favored a harder line than Democrats both for the military detention of suspects and for indefinite detention. edit to answer Swazi above: go back to checking who voted in favor of the indefinite retention provision. Republicans supported it much more than Democrats. Are you ready to rail against Republicans?
The Democrats supported it wholeheartedly as well, they had complete control of the Senate and yet they all voted for it anyway. To answer your question, yes, I am willing to rail against ANYONE who is attacking our civil liberties, no matter what letter you have after your name.
By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama proposed the provisions be put in the NDAA in the first place. Then Obama defended the provisions after judges tried to strike it down.
The NDAA clause allowing for indefinite detention is a serious matter and should be treated as such. Linking to a Limbaugh YouTube video, Glenn Beck's website, and a Russia Today article is how to get those who don't know about it to dismiss it immediately.
What's wrong with Rush Limbaugh? He arguably does a better job representing both sides than anyone in the mainstream media does.
Nope. Lost the remaining shreds of credibility you had with that statement.
On October 24 2012 13:35 Swazi Spring wrote: [quote] Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama proposed the provisions be put in the NDAA in the first place. Then Obama defended the provisions after judges tried to strike it down.
The NDAA clause allowing for indefinite detention is a serious matter and should be treated as such. Linking to a Limbaugh YouTube video, Glenn Beck's website, and a Russia Today article is how to get those who don't know about it to dismiss it immediately.
What's wrong with Rush Limbaugh? He arguably does a better job representing both sides than anyone in the mainstream media does.
Nope. Lost the remaining shreds of credibility you had with that statement.
So just because he's a conservative, he's automatically an evil liar? He backs up all of his statements with sources, check out his website, you can read entire transcripts from his show and he provides reliable sources for everything. Yet here you are, insulting a man who has dedicated his life to educating young people, spreading American ideas, and standing up to tyrants.
By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama proposed the provisions be put in the NDAA in the first place. Then Obama defended the provisions after judges tried to strike it down.
The NDAA clause allowing for indefinite detention is a serious matter and should be treated as such. Linking to a Limbaugh YouTube video, Glenn Beck's website, and a Russia Today article is how to get those who don't know about it to dismiss it immediately.
What's wrong with Rush Limbaugh? He arguably does a better job representing both sides than anyone in the mainstream media does.
Not even I would claim that Rush represents both sides. He's obviously got a strong conservative bent. You can't really cite him as a new source because all he does is comment upon stories that other parties have already written. That said, I wouldn't say that he is any more "unfair" than any other major media figure. The difference between him and the liberals parading around the major networks is that Rush is open about his point of view whereas the major media figures present themselves as being objective when they clearly are not.
On October 24 2012 13:35 Swazi Spring wrote: [quote] Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama actually wrote in his signing statement that he didn't agree with the LIMITATIONS the law placed on his ability to detain Americans, and his Justice Department has fought against challenges to the law.
I don't have time to research this right now, but from what I remember the Republicans wanted to force military custody of terrorist suspects and the Obama administration fought against that. A few links:
I can't research this further at the moment, but Republicans clearly favored a harder line than Democrats both for the military detention of suspects and for indefinite detention. edit to answer Swazi above: go back to checking who voted in favor of the indefinite retention provision. Republicans supported it much more than Democrats. Are you ready to rail against Republicans?
The Democrats supported it wholeheartedly as well, they had complete control of the Senate and yet they all voted for it anyway. To answer your question, yes, I am willing to rail against ANYONE who is attacking our civil liberties, no matter what letter you have after your name.
By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama proposed the provisions be put in the NDAA in the first place. Then Obama defended the provisions after judges tried to strike it down.
The NDAA clause allowing for indefinite detention is a serious matter and should be treated as such. Linking to a Limbaugh YouTube video, Glenn Beck's website, and a Russia Today article is how to get those who don't know about it to dismiss it immediately.
What's wrong with Rush Limbaugh? He arguably does a better job representing both sides than anyone in the mainstream media does.
What's wrong with Pat Robertson? He arguably does a better job representing all faiths than anyone in the mainstream media does.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama actually wrote in his signing statement that he didn't agree with the LIMITATIONS the law placed on his ability to detain Americans, and his Justice Department has fought against challenges to the law.
I don't have time to research this right now, but from what I remember the Republicans wanted to force military custody of terrorist suspects and the Obama administration fought against that. A few links:
I can't research this further at the moment, but Republicans clearly favored a harder line than Democrats both for the military detention of suspects and for indefinite detention. edit to answer Swazi above: go back to checking who voted in favor of the indefinite retention provision. Republicans supported it much more than Democrats. Are you ready to rail against Republicans?
The Democrats supported it wholeheartedly as well, they had complete control of the Senate and yet they all voted for it anyway. To answer your question, yes, I am willing to rail against ANYONE who is attacking our civil liberties, no matter what letter you have after your name.
I think you just proved my point that this was a bipartisan bill...
You said: "The Democrats supported it wholeheartedly as well". But the house vote was 93 Yes, 93 No. So you're wrong.
You then said: "they had complete control of the Senate and yet they all voted for it anyway". But the senate vote was 48 Yes, 3 No. So you're wrong again.
Then you finally said: "I am willing to rail against ANYONE who is attacking our civil liberties, no matter what letter you have after your name". But I don't see you railing against these 234 Republicans who voted for it.
On October 24 2012 13:35 Swazi Spring wrote: [quote] Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama proposed the provisions be put in the NDAA in the first place. Then Obama defended the provisions after judges tried to strike it down.
The NDAA clause allowing for indefinite detention is a serious matter and should be treated as such. Linking to a Limbaugh YouTube video, Glenn Beck's website, and a Russia Today article is how to get those who don't know about it to dismiss it immediately.
What's wrong with Rush Limbaugh? He arguably does a better job representing both sides than anyone in the mainstream media does.
What's wrong with Pat Robertson? He arguably does a better job representing all faiths than anyone in the mainstream media does.
I was referring to how Rush openly admits to being a conservative, yet he also showcases liberal viewpoints on issues more than the left-wing media showcases conservative viewpoints.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama actually wrote in his signing statement that he didn't agree with the LIMITATIONS the law placed on his ability to detain Americans, and his Justice Department has fought against challenges to the law.
I don't have time to research this right now, but from what I remember the Republicans wanted to force military custody of terrorist suspects and the Obama administration fought against that. A few links:
I can't research this further at the moment, but Republicans clearly favored a harder line than Democrats both for the military detention of suspects and for indefinite detention. edit to answer Swazi above: go back to checking who voted in favor of the indefinite retention provision. Republicans supported it much more than Democrats. Are you ready to rail against Republicans?
The Democrats supported it wholeheartedly as well, they had complete control of the Senate and yet they all voted for it anyway. To answer your question, yes, I am willing to rail against ANYONE who is attacking our civil liberties, no matter what letter you have after your name.
I think you just proved my point that this was a bipartisan bill...
In the senate, yes. In the House republicans weighed in at about 4 to 1 in favor. Democrats weighed in 50-50.
Overall, 59.4% of democrats in the house and senate voted yes on a form of the bill. Overall, 83.5% of republicans in the house and senate voted yes on a form of the bill. This means that 40.6% of democrats opposed it while only 16.5% of republicans opposed it.
EPT
