Has obama failed as a leader

[fskimospy]

Still shilling for obama, not surprised at all. The president said he would close Gitmo and he didn't, he campaigned as anti-war yet he is a warmonger. Do liberals ever call him out?

I really love your posts. You're like a collection of ultra right wing refrigerator poetry magnets. It's always the same phrases, just slightly rearranged.

 

[Texashiker]

So?

So, obama tells his generals to close gitmo and move the prisoners, those generals have to follow orders.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Still shilling for obama, not surprised at all. The president said he would close Gitmo and he didn't, he campaigned as anti-war yet he is a warmonger. Do liberals ever call him out?

Can you explain what is wrong about what I said? Are you saying that those actions weren't taken to prevent the closure of Guantanamo Bay?

Please offer something substantive to support your position other than empty one line statements that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[fskimospy]

So, obama tells his generals to close gitmo and move the prisoners, those generals have to follow orders.

Now all you need to do is find a way for him to do it without spending a single dollar. If they do spend even $1, they are violating the law.

Maybe you can help out and draw up a plan for this. We can't pay you as that would be spending money on closing Gitmo and would be illegal, though.

 

[TerryMathews]

All that aside, I never want to hear you complain about Obama passing health care instead of focusing on the economy. You are arguing that Obama should have ground military appropriations to a halt in the midst of the worst economic crisis in generations. Again if that's your stance that's fine, but pursuing that strategy would have had severe consequences.

I supported the Republicans using the same tactic. I see nothing wrong with standing by your convictions.

He promised it, he was given a clear mandate to accomplish it. Its unfortunate that he chose not to pursue that objective as strongly as he did PPACA.

 

[TerryMathews]

Now all you need to do is find a way for him to do it without spending a single dollar. If they do spend even $1, they are violating the law.

A- its not like Obama shies away from violating the law. See the "recess" appointments debacle.

B- as I understand it, spending prohibition only affected the military budget since it was on a defense appropriations bill. Could DOJ discretionary funds have been used to transfer?

Hell, I'm sure if they really wanted to give these terrorists a fair trial, they could've gotten some civil rights orgs to foot the entire bill.

 

[Texashiker]

Now all you need to do is find a way for him to do it without spending a single dollar. If they do spend even $1, they are violating the law.

So what?

Do you know what happened when congress questioned Jeffersons authority to make the Louisiana purchase?

Then there is this "separate but equal" issue between the branches of government. If congress withholds money, the branches are not separate or equal.

 

[fskimospy]

So what?

Do you know what happened when congress questioned Jeffersons authority to make the Louisiana purchase?

Then there is this "separate but equal" issue between the branches of government. If congress withholds money, the branches are not separate or equal.

What I love is that in other threads you don't hesitate to call Obama a tyrant/dictator/whatever, but in this case you're mad at him for not acting like a dictator.

 

[fskimospy]

A- its not like Obama shies away from violating the law. See the "recess" appointments debacle.

Ok, since you're advocating for Obama to break the law here I don't want to hear you complaining when you think he broke the law doing something else.

B- as I understand it, spending prohibition only affected the military budget since it was on a defense appropriations bill. Could DOJ discretionary funds have been used to transfer?

No. While I'm not going to go look up the exact language of the defense appropriation, I'm quite sure that it simply says 'no funds will be spent', not 'no DoD funds will be spent'. While federal spending is often broken up by topic, its rules are binding on all parts of the federal government. This is why you end up with random, unrelated amendments sometimes tacked on to bills.

Hell, I'm sure if they really wanted to give these terrorists a fair trial, they could've gotten some civil rights orgs to foot the entire bill.

I'm not sure what the total bill for housing and trying all these detainees over years would be but it's unlikely that any civil rights organization has the cash for that.

 

[Texashiker]

What I love is that in other threads you don't hesitate to call Obama a tyrant/dictator/whatever, but in this case you're mad at him for not acting like a dictator.

What did Jefferson tell congress when they questioned his authority to make the Louisiana purchase?

 

[fskimospy]

What did Jefferson tell congress when they questioned his authority to make the Louisiana purchase?

Don't worry, you've told me everything I need to know. From this point forward I know that you advocate for the president to break the law.

 

[Texashiker]

Don't worry, you've told me everything I need to know. From this point forward I know that you advocate for the president to break the law.

In other words you do not know what Jefferson said.

Do you know what "for the greater good" means? That is not what Jefferson said, but that is what his actions meant.

 

[fskimospy]

In other words you do not know what Jefferson said.

Do you know what "for the greater good" means? That is not what Jefferson said, but that is what his actions meant.

I know exactly what Jefferson did and said in regards to the Louisiana Purchase. Now I know that you approve of the president breaking the law. I'll be sure to remind you of this in future threads when you complain about it.

 

[Texashiker]

I know exactly what Jefferson did and said in regards to the Louisiana Purchase. Now I know that you approve of the president breaking the law. I'll be sure to remind you of this in future threads when you complain about it.

As I have also said in various threads just because something is legal/illegal, does not make it right or wrong. You be sure to quote me on that as well.

If you live within a certain boundary, how are you supposed to expand?

If it does not include suing states over voting rights, or killing people in foreign countries with drone strikes, or going on vacation, obama does not see interested.

Where are the meetings with party leaders? Where is the common ground that leaders are supposed to find?

 

[Incorruptible]

I really love your posts. You're like a collection of ultra right wing refrigerator poetry magnets. It's always the same phrases, just slightly rearranged.

I am not right-wing, I am more of a classical liberal.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I am not right-wing, I am more of a classical liberal.

Where have I heard that one before... oh yeah... ProfessorJohn..
A couple of others as well...
PJABBER and cybrsage.
So... WWYBYWB, and be truthful about it. The mods might go easier on you for being a RBM.

 

[TerryMathews]

Ok, since you're advocating for Obama to break the law here I don't want to hear you complaining when you think he broke the law doing something else.



No. While I'm not going to go look up the exact language of the defense appropriation, I'm quite sure that it simply says 'no funds will be spent', not 'no DoD funds will be spent'. While federal spending is often broken up by topic, its rules are binding on all parts of the federal government. This is why you end up with random, unrelated amendments sometimes tacked on to bills.



I'm not sure what the total bill for housing and trying all these detainees over years would be but it's unlikely that any civil rights organization has the cash for that.

A- right back at you. He doesn't get to use the excuse "but that's against the law" when hes willing to break it any time it stands in the way of his agenda. Your position here is disingenuous at best.

B- since I'm unwilling to pull the bills as well it will simply have to be a disagreement between us for the ages. Regardless, it was an ancillary point. He should have taken as hard a stand on Gitmo as he did on PPACA. Clearly one was a higher priority for him than the other.

C- I think youre wrong here. Worldwide there are a number of organizations and governments interested in these men getting a fair trial. I'm sure the money could be found but that's not the point. I'm sure asking for donations would shame congress into funding fair trials.

 

[fskimospy]

A- you are in charge of your own opinions. I am not in charge of Obama's statements.

B- it isn't really a disagreement for the ages, I'm quite certain that he could not pull funding from a different agency to affect the transfer.

C- the total costs for security and such would likely go into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Call me skeptical.

 

[werepossum]

And you would have ignored the shitstorm and legislation being launched from congress forbidding you from
A. Bringing them to the us.
B. giving the trials
And finally
C. Housing them in the us.


Sorry but congress is just as much at fault for the gitmo mess or maybe even more so than the president.

More so. I think Obama would have closed Gitmo, but the Congressional Dems joined the Pubbies in forbidding it. Obama still could have done it, but he would have expended a LOT of political capital and damaged himself politically in the process.

Since I do not want Gitmo closed, I'm glad he folded. Since I'm glad he folded, I'm hardly going to complain about it. File this under campaign promises he made an honest attempt to fulfil.

 

[TerryMathews]

A- you are in charge of your own opinions. I am not in charge of Obama's statements.

B- it isn't really a disagreement for the ages, I'm quite certain that he could not pull funding from a different agency to affect the transfer.

C- the total costs for security and such would likely go into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Call me skeptical.

A- this has nothing to do with the point I was making

B- I'm glad you're certain, I'm not.

C- some of those terrorists come from very rich families, like the Bin Ladens. I am less skeptical, but I'm also sure once the President started private funding the transport and detention the money would be magically be made available. Holding a telethon to have fair trials is extremely embarrassing.

 

[werepossum]

Lowest TV audience for the State of the Union since 2000.

If you like your state of the union speech, you can keep your state of the union speech.

LOL
Uno

LOL +1

Speaking of failures. How's that temp job working out at age 40?

Guess I'll let you know in 5 years? But why would I have a temp in 5 years if I don't have one now?

LOL

It's always amusing to see some forumite aim for "Asshole" but achieve only "Idiot".

 

[rudeguy]

It's always amusing to see some forumite aim for "Asshole" but achieve only "Idiot".

I can usually overlook ignorance. But when you go for a personal attack and not even come close....then I deem you a moron and ignore every post you make in the future.

If I were less of a person, I would use this opportunity to do a bit of humble bragging. But I'm not.

 

[chucky2]

At $17T+ and counting in debt, "budgets" $xxxB - $1T+ past revenues, hard statements of we need to blow more money we don't have (which I'm all for, faster we crash the better IMO), WhoTF would be insane enough to even attempt to argue the military, which already has regular transports to and from Gitmo, and who has $xxxB budget each year, lacks the ability to get the prisoners in Gitmo to the States?

Or, looked at another way: WhoTF has reached the level of retardation where they are arguing that the Fed gov Leadership cares about money when they want to do something? Hahaha...good one! Like...scream laugh worthy... :thumbsup:

 

[unokitty]

Another data point.

Uno