Nixon made legal

[Craig234]

Just as financial practices that harm the country and were once illegal were made legal by the power of the industry's lobbying, much has been made legal.

Oh, he did plenty illegal at the time - breaking and entering, using national security to try to hide the crime, and much more. But here's Daniel Ellsberg:

He would probably also feel vindicated (and envious) that ALL the crimes he committed against me–which forced his resignation facing impeachment–are now legal.

That includes burglarizing my former psychoanalyst’s office (for material to blackmail me into silence), warrantless wiretapping, using the CIA against an American citizen in the US, and authorizing a White House hit squad to “incapacitate me totally” (on the steps of the Capitol on May 3, 1971). All the above were to prevent me from exposing guilty secrets of his own administration that went beyond the Pentagon Papers. But under George W. Bush and Barack Obama,with the PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendment Act, and (for the hit squad) President Obama’s executive orders. they have all become legal.

There is no further need for present or future presidents to commit obstructions of justice (like Nixon’s bribes to potential witnesses) to conceal such acts. Under the new laws, Nixon would have stayed in office, and the Vietnam War would have continued at least several more years.

Likewise, where Nixon was the first president in history to use the 54-year-old Espionage Act to indict an American (me) for unauthorized disclosures to the American people (it had previously been used, as intended, exclusively against spies), he would be impressed to see that President Obama has now brought five such indictments against leaks, almost twice as many as all previous presidents put together (three).

He could only admire Obama’s boldness in using the same Espionage Act provisions used against me–almost surely unconstitutional used against disclosures to the American press and public in my day, less surely under the current Supreme Court–to indict Thomas Drake, a classic whistleblower who exposed illegality and waste in the NSA.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/06/09-1

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Jesus, let's go back to the Punic Wars.

 

[MikeMike]

Deflect away from Weiner! Deflect Deflect Deflect!!!

 

[Craig234]

Jesus, let's go back to the Punic Wars.

What did you throw up on your keyboard that got into my thread?

You're arguing that the changes largely in the last decade that have greatly reduced the rights and protections for citizens in the US are not an issue, they're like' the Punic wars'?

Don't make an idiot of yourself. It's too bad you are so happy to give up your and others' rights.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What did you throw up on your keyboard that got into my thread?

You're arguing that the changes largely in the last decade that have greatly reduced the rights and protections for citizens in the US are not an issue, they're like' the Punic wars'?

Don't make an idiot of yourself. It's too bad you are so happy to give up your and others' rights.

Where's you outrage on Obama's present day policies regarding prisons in Afghanistan, about his support of ATT and the strengthening of wiretapping policies? How about that he said one thing and supports the other?

Nixon is dead get over it.

Hell, we know Nixon was crap. Obama is in office and pulling this shit.

Well, the buck stops at the living President's desk.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, how do you feel about Obama's secret war in Yemen?

And doesn't his bombing of Pakistan seem very similar to Nixon bombing Cambodia?

 

[Craig234]

Where's you outrage on Obama's present day policies regarding prisons in Afghanistan, about his support of ATT and the strengthening of wiretapping policies? How about that he said one thing and supports the other?

Nixon is dead get over it.

Hell, we know Nixon was crap. Obama is in office and pulling this shit.

Well, the buck stops at the living President's desk.

If you could read, you'd understand this is largely about the current President.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you could read, you'd understand this is largely about the current President.

Excellent!

Now who's going to fix this? I don't see either party willing to do a damn thing and I mean the party at large who is in charge, not a subgroup of progressives, who just might.

In the real world as it exists, who makes it better?

 

[Craig234]

Excellent!

Now who's going to fix this? I don't see either party willing to do a damn thing and I mean the party at large who is in charge, not a subgroup of progressives, who just might.

In the real world as it exists, who makes it better?

At least we're on track finally what the thread is about. I didn't say it'll get fixed.

Looking at who would fix it, the two main groups seem to be progressives (along with many other fixes) and Libertarians (who are a disaster).

That's not a fun answer, note I didn't even bother to go into it. Step 1 - raise the issue.

If you want more solution, we could start with a point I've made for years, that we need to persuade citizens to drop the hyper-sensitivity to ANY terrorist violence, and recognize that if we're going to have any reasonable freedom, the terrorists are going to have to be able to cause some harm and we need to accept that.

When one attack could cost a president re-election, he's probably going to do a lot.

 

[NoWhereM]

Looking at who would fix it, the two main groups seem to be progressives (along with many other fixes) and Libertarians (who are a disaster).

If Obama and the people he has surrounded himself with aren't progressives what are they?

When I think of Libertarians I think of John Stossel. He seems to make sense, it sounds about right, but after listening to him for a while I get the impression he might be a little nuts.

 

[Anarchist420]

If Obama and the people he has surrounded himself with aren't progressives what are they?

No, Marx would never surround himself with the fascists that Obama surrounds himself with.

 

[Craig234]

If Obama and the people he has surrounded himself with aren't progressives what are they?

One of the problems in political discussion is that it's biased to be about things that have easy labels.

So when Obama does anything liberal, some immediately spew "socialism!!!!!" like one of Pavlov's dogs, but there's no 'easy label' for much of the other side's wrongs.

They tend to lump themselves in with general labels like 'capitalism', so if you are attacking something terrible they do, it sounds like you are attacking capitalism broadly.

What is Obama? It seems a number of words are needed to say much - he seems to have a number of parts to his views and agenda, which come down to SOME very modestly progressive goals, with a whole lot of compromise and friendliness to corporate agendas - he's put some brakes on some of the worst Bush excesses, but he's also not done almost any of the progressive policies, from Single-payer healthcare to real Wall Street reform to strong restoration of civil rights.

There's no easy label, but many progressives call him 'a good Republican'.

When I think of Libertarians I think of John Stossel. He seems to make sense, it sounds about right, but after listening to him for a while I get the impression he might be a little nuts.

You're right on there. Do some more research, and he's terrible - he's made a small industry of marketing terrible libertarian doctrine for the mass market.

He's gotten into all kinds of things like school materials by 'sounding reasonable at first', but check into any of the many summaries of his views.

 

[blackangst1]

he's put some brakes on some of the worst Bush excesses

Like what?

 

[Matt1970]

he's put some brakes on some of the worst Bush excesses,

More like he missed the break pedal and floored it...

 

[Darwin333]

Just as financial practices that harm the country and were once illegal were made legal by the power of the industry's lobbying, much has been made legal.

Oh, he did plenty illegal at the time - breaking and entering, using national security to try to hide the crime, and much more. But here's Daniel Ellsberg:



http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/06/09-1

I'll be damned, we completely agree again. The entire idea was for the President to not have King like powers and while he still doesn't have power to do whatever the hell he wants it has gotten way out of hand.

Most people only think that when the party they disagree with is in power so I applaud you for bringing the issue up when that is not the case.

 

[Darwin333]

One of the problems in political discussion is that it's biased to be about things that have easy labels.

So when Obama does anything liberal, some immediately spew "socialism!!!!!" like one of Pavlov's dogs, but there's no 'easy label' for much of the other side's wrongs.

They tend to lump themselves in with general labels like 'capitalism', so if you are attacking something terrible they do, it sounds like you are attacking capitalism broadly.

What is Obama? It seems a number of words are needed to say much - he seems to have a number of parts to his views and agenda, which come down to SOME very modestly progressive goals, with a whole lot of compromise and friendliness to corporate agendas - he's put some brakes on some of the worst Bush excesses, but he's also not done almost any of the progressive policies, from Single-payer healthcare to real Wall Street reform to strong restoration of civil rights.

There's no easy label, but many progressives call him 'a good Republican'.



You're right on there. Do some more research, and he's terrible - he's made a small industry of marketing terrible libertarian doctrine for the mass market.

He's gotten into all kinds of things like school materials by 'sounding reasonable at first', but check into any of the many summaries of his views.

I call him Bush Jr and he is about as good of a Republican as Bush was, take that however you choose.

You are half right though, the irony of the right calling him a commie or socialist is just funny as hell considering his almost complete continuation of Bush policies (with a few notable exceptions).

It is kind of like how you say he "hasn't restored civil liberties" instead of a truer statement of "he has continued to rob us of our civil liberties". Those are two very different statements with very different meaning. There is a big difference between passively not doing something and actively working towards something and even though both are wrong the latter is far worse.

 

[Darwin333]

If Obama and the people he has surrounded himself with aren't progressives what are they?

Doesn't matter who he has surrounded himself with or even what he says. What he actually does is what really matters and on that front he is much closer to a smooth talking GW Bush then even a semi-socialist.

 

[Darwin333]

Excellent!

Now who's going to fix this? I don't see either party willing to do a damn thing and I mean the party at large who is in charge, not a subgroup of progressives, who just might.

In the real world as it exists, who makes it better?

That is the problem. The party in control of the WH has no problem expanding presidential powers because it is their guy in charge and by party I am including the voters. Look at the threads when GW Bush was expanding presidential powers and who was for and against them, now that is mostly reversed.

People are short sighted, they have no problem with "their" guy having that kind of power because he will do things they agree with. What the evidently fail to realize is eventually someone you don't agree with will have those same powers which is the main idea behind limiting power.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally Posted by Craig234
he's put some brakes on some of the worst Bush excesses

Like what?

Craig? Care to answer this? Or anyone?

 

[Craig234]

Like what?

Fair question, but you should know a lot of the answer.

Let's pick 10 - he's reduced the hostility to any sort of international cooperation; he's not continued the Bush practice of selling government positions with oversight to the industries they're overseeing, while Bush appointed hundreds; he's avoided the terrible level of politicization of the Justice Department (including the outrageous political termination of several US Attorneys who would not prosecute Democrats without justification in election season); he's avoided appointing aggressive neocons to run foreign policy who create a corrupt and illegal ground war; he's avoided adding new massive tax cuts for the rich, though he did make the mistake of compromising with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts temporarily, though he said he won't do it again; he's ended the terrible Bush policy of gutting the Freedom of Information Act (and created a new commission to declassify documents, which started off with *400 million pages* to review); he did pass SOME financial industry reform, though inadequate; he did a lot better with bailouts than Bush, adding more restrictions and conditions and putting them to some better use; he's avoided weakening environmental protections the way Bush did in the 'Clean Skies Act'; he's added some healthcare reform, for example reducing the amount drug companies can screw the taxpayer for Medicare drugs.

There are many more, but that's 10. Bonus: he's said he ended torture. Another bonus: he didn't appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court (or Alberto Gonzales).

Heck, just ending the use of the Federalist Society for rating judicial nominations is a big fix, not to mention ending the practice of pulling appointments from applicants to right-wing organizations.

He hasn't renewed Bush's efforts to destroy social security...

 

[blackangst1]

Fair question, but you should know a lot of the answer.

Let's pick 10 -

OK, lets.

he's reduced the hostility to any sort of international cooperation;

By doing what? Extending a hand instead of a fist? Sure, Obama said we are not at war with Islam. But so did Bush:

"Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for, and hate the freedom of the Czech Republic. And therefore, we must work together to defend ourselves. And by remaining strong and united and tough, we'll prevail."

Press Conference by President Bush and President Havel of Czech Republic
Prague Castle, Prague, Czech Republic
November 20, 2002

How about Bush's view that there is primarily evil and good in the world with no wiggle room in between? I'll remind you of Obama's acceptance speech for the Peace Prize:

For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

Hmm looks eerily similar to me. As far as Iraq goes, Bush negotiated the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq shortly before leaving office, thus, setting a withdrawal agreement. Then last year when the commander Obama put in place over Afghanastan warned that the US was losing there, Obama did what Bush would have done and sent more troops. We now have over 1600 dead because of it. But hey, its a just war, right?

Meanwhile, he has continued Bush's stance, rightly so, on Hamas and in Isreal while creating even more of a divide between us and Isreal.
I dont see any clear distinction between the two in action. Perhaps there are micro examples, but overall, he has his continued and even expanded the WOT even AFTER getting Bin Laden.

he's not continued the Bush practice of selling government positions with oversight to the industries they're overseeing, while Bush appointed hundreds;

You gotta be joking, right?
You mean like Michael Taylor's appointment to the FDA and America's food safety czar? Or maybe his initial nomination of Bill Richardson for commerce sect'y? Or maybe Tom Dashcle's debacle? Or, maybe after his quote on the campaign trail that lobbyists "wont find a job in my white house", then, behind closed doors, making exceptions? Do I need to remind you how many he's brought into his administration? And do I also need to remind you how many appointments from the very corrupt banking industry you complain about have been brought aboard?

he's avoided the terrible level of politicization of the Justice Department (including the outrageous political termination of several US Attorneys who would not prosecute Democrats without justification in election season);

Well, if you consider this serious, then fine. You can have that one *shrug* to each their own.

he's avoided appointing aggressive neocons to run foreign policy who create a corrupt and illegal ground war;

Wait wait wait. What the fuck? Do you need a reminder of who exactly funds these wars? Yes, it's the same senate that continues the "illegal" ground wars still going on. Lets go through this again, shall we?

Iraq: he's continuing SOFA as Bush put forth. No change there.

Afghanastan: rightly so, and as Bush probably would have ended up doing after the withdrawal from Iraq, he increased our presence there. Obama continues the "we will hunt down turruists wherever they exist" attitude that Bush had. And, in fact, has been very confrontational towards President Hamid Karzai, and that relationship remains fragile. After the fall of Saddam, at least Bush set up a withdrawal plan via SOFA, realizing we dont need to be there. As of now, there is no whispers as to when or under what circumstance we will withdraw from Afghanistan. This fucking WOT, even after the head of the snake has been cut off, will continue indefinitely. With body bags to continue to come home.

Iran: I seem to remember Obama promising to engage Iran instead of setting ultimatums and using sanctions. How's that working out?

Libya: Ive commented on Libya in other threads. We dont belong there. We cant be the worlds savior. And, IMHO, if we're going to be, why pick a place where we can do the MOST good like Africa? Why the fuck a tiny country like Libya? WE DONT BELONG THERE. You can argue we're liberating the people, but you cant admit we liberated alot of poeple in Iraq under the oppresive Saddam regime, can you. Yes, that was a statement, not a question.

I wont even comment on Isreal.

he's avoided adding new massive tax cuts for the rich, though he did make the mistake of compromising with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts temporarily, though he said he won't do it again;

True, he has not ADDED tax cuts. But, after looking as his appointments from the banking industry, and by continuing those tax cuts, its CLEAR who Obama represents, isnt it? Oh and as far him saying he wont do it again...fuck man, really? He also said he would close GITMO lol.

he's ended the terrible Bush policy of gutting the Freedom of Information Act (and created a new commission to declassify documents, which started off with *400 million pages* to review);

I will admit Im unaware of Bush "gutting the Freedom of Information Act". I am aware, however, of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, sponsored by Harry Reid (he's a Democrat, BTW) which has some very good provisions in it.

he did pass SOME financial industry reform, though inadequate;

That I agree with.

he did a lot better with bailouts than Bush, adding more restrictions and conditions and putting them to some better use;

The restrictions and conditions he put in place are non-consequential. He has failed to address the issues that pose a primary problem in our financial market: derivitives. You do know, dont you, of many of Obama's nominations by former Goldman Sachs execs, dont you? And these people are who crafted the...uh...bailout. And how about the Chair of the SEC Mary Schapiro who REFUSES to ban naked short selling and other market manipulation tactics. You can read her sordid career along with her appointments from the Madoff family on wiki. If he was serious about REAL financial reform, he would clean house of those who helped cause it. Instead, he either brings them on to his staff or keeps the status quo in place. Disgusting.

Oh, and business as its always been.

he's avoided weakening environmental protections the way Bush did in the 'Clean Skies Act';

I agree with this, although it's not in my personal top 10 list. Thats fine if its yours though.

he's added some healthcare reform, for example reducing the amount drug companies can screw the taxpayer for Medicare drugs.

How about the Medicare first-time hard cap on spending? Obama's criticism of Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal are disingenuous. Whereas Ryan's cuts would take effect for those turning 65 before 2022, Obama's cap is immediate. And whereas Ryan's savings would be directed back into Medicare, Obama's savings would be diverted into new entitlements for younger people. There are good and bad to each plan, but to cherry pick one thing without looking at the elephant in the room is partisan at best.

TL;DR: Obama is Bush on steroids on the important issues. As another poster said, he didnt put the brakes on anything...he missed and floored the gas.

 

[Darwin333]

Fair question, but you should know a lot of the answer.

Let's pick 10 - he's reduced the hostility to any sort of international cooperation; he's not continued the Bush practice of selling government positions with oversight to the industries they're overseeing, while Bush appointed hundreds; he's avoided the terrible level of politicization of the Justice Department (including the outrageous political termination of several US Attorneys who would not prosecute Democrats without justification in election season); he's avoided appointing aggressive neocons to run foreign policy who create a corrupt and illegal ground war; he's avoided adding new massive tax cuts for the rich, though he did make the mistake of compromising with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts temporarily, though he said he won't do it again; he's ended the terrible Bush policy of gutting the Freedom of Information Act (and created a new commission to declassify documents, which started off with *400 million pages* to review); he did pass SOME financial industry reform, though inadequate; he did a lot better with bailouts than Bush, adding more restrictions and conditions and putting them to some better use; he's avoided weakening environmental protections the way Bush did in the 'Clean Skies Act'; he's added some healthcare reform, for example reducing the amount drug companies can screw the taxpayer for Medicare drugs.

There are many more, but that's 10. Bonus: he's said he ended torture. Another bonus: he didn't appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court (or Alberto Gonzales).

Heck, just ending the use of the Federalist Society for rating judicial nominations is a big fix, not to mention ending the practice of pulling appointments from applicants to right-wing organizations.

He hasn't renewed Bush's efforts to destroy social security...

<cough> Turbo Tax Timmy <cough>

Justice department? Puh-lease, wake me up when he prosecutes some of the biggest criminals in our country.

Freedom? What position did he have on the patriot act renewal?

Taxes on the rich? Puh-lease. nuff said.

Financial reform? Really? Seriously? If the Captain of the Titanic stuck his finger in the gaping slash I wouldn't give him kudos for "trying" because he didn't do a damn thing to even slow the sinking down much less prevent it.

You might have a point with the EPA, I am not sure yet.

 

[Craig234]

<cough> Turbo Tax Timmy <cough>

Justice department? Puh-lease, wake me up when he prosecutes some of the biggest criminals in our country.

Freedom? What position did he have on the patriot act renewal?

Taxes on the rich? Puh-lease. nuff said.

Financial reform? Really? Seriously? If the Captain of the Titanic stuck his finger in the gaping slash I wouldn't give him kudos for "trying" because he didn't do a damn thing to even slow the sinking down much less prevent it.

You might have a point with the EPA, I am not sure yet.

I added a sentence, and removed it, saying 'someone will misrepresent what this is, failing to understand it's answering the question to name some things Obama put a brake on from Bush, and start listing bad things about Obama'. Obviously I was right to have considered adding it.

It's tedious when people can't read the context and post irrelevant replies.

"Craig234, what's the best thing Obama did this year?"

"Craig234: (answers the question)"

"Some poster: You didn't mention thing thing I hate Obama for! bias! incomplete!"

I don't need to repeat the BAD things about Obama answering the question I did.

 

[a777pilot]

Jesus, let's go back to the Punic Wars.

Screw that....Cain and Abel.

 

[Craig234]

OK, lets.

[/SIZE]
By doing what? Extending a hand instead of a fist? Sure, Obama said we are not at war with Islam. But so did Bush:

How about Bush's view that there is primarily evil and good in the world with no wiggle room in between? I'll remind you of Obama's acceptance speech for the Peace Prize:
[/FONT]

There's a lot more to it than that. I'm not saying that he has not used violence.

I'm saying he's backed off the Bush policy of basically saying 'screw the rest of the world, screw any internationalism', and offending and insulting the rest of the world.

You don't see his secretary of Defense (who happened to be Bush's second) saying that 'old' Europe doesn't matter much anymore, insulting the UN much.

Bush did - under heavy pressure from Tony Blair - make a couple gestures about the UN, but that was the small exception.

He did have a coalition to the extent he could buy a few countries to say 'uh, sure, we're all for you, now where's the check' - 'you forgot to say Poland'.

A bottom line: Bush intentionally violated the UN charter to do what JFK said the US would never do, start an aggressive war, on false pretenses.

Obama has not. He's used some force, without ground troops, with UN approval as I recall, under different circumstances.

Basically, Bush was viewed as squandering decades of goodwill the US had built up; Obama is viewed far better by other countries.

Meanwhile, he has continued Bush's stance, rightly so, on Hamas and in Isreal while creating even more of a divide between us and Isreal.

To his credit. Israel is behaving illegally and against peace in some areas.

You gotta be joking, right?
You mean like Michael Taylor's appointment to the FDA and America's food safety czar? Or maybe his initial nomination of Bill Richardson for commerce sect'y? Or maybe Tom Dashcle's debacle? Or, maybe after his quote on the campaign trail that lobbyists "wont find a job in my white house", then, behind closed doors, making exceptions? Do I need to remind you how many he's brought into his administration? And do I also need to remind you how many appointments from the very corrupt banking industry you complain about have been brought aboard?
[/FONT]

[/SIZE]

You are hard to quote, there's a tone of 'font' and 'color' codes.

You're right that Obama has not SOLVED the problem. I'm right that he has put brakes on it.

There's still a revolving door that's corrupt, still industry appointees to oversight positions, still lobbyists appointed to government positions.

But it's all a lot less than it was, compared to Bush's unprecedented selling out.

Between 'the K Street Project' and other policies, Bush has HUNDREDS of such appointments - a big political machine making the government 'pay to play'.

Obama has far fewer lobbyists appointed (breaking his statement he'd have none), he has no such 'pay to play' machine anything close to what Bush did (though he has done an amount of it, such as 'partnering' with the healthcare industry trying to give them concessions to get it passed), as I understand it far fewer such appointments of industry representatives (you have some good examples of some he has).

As I said, he 'put brakes oon the Bush policies' - you are arguing against something I didn't say, that he stopped the policies instead of just reducing them a lot.

Well, if you consider this serious, then fine. You can have that one *shrug* to each their own.

Wait wait wait. What the fuck? Do you need a reminder of who exactly funds these wars? Yes, it's the same senate that continues the "illegal" ground wars still going on. Lets go through this again, shall we?

Iraq: he's continuing SOFA as Bush put forth. No change there.

Afghanastan: rightly so, and as Bush probably would have ended up doing after the withdrawal from Iraq, he increased our presence there. Obama continues the "we will hunt down turruists wherever they exist" attitude that Bush had. And, in fact, has been very confrontational towards President Hamid Karzai, and that relationship remains fragile. After the fall of Saddam, at least Bush set up a withdrawal plan via SOFA, realizing we dont need to be there. As of now, there is no whispers as to when or under what circumstance we will withdraw from Afghanistan. This fucking WOT, even after the head of the snake has been cut off, will continue indefinitely. With body bags to continue to come home.

Iran: I seem to remember Obama promising to engage Iran instead of setting ultimatums and using sanctions. How's that working out?

Libya: Ive commented on Libya in other threads. We dont belong there. We cant be the worlds savior. And, IMHO, if we're going to be, why pick a place where we can do the MOST good like Africa? Why the fuck a tiny country like Libya? WE DONT BELONG THERE. You can argue we're liberating the people, but you cant admit we liberated alot of poeple in Iraq under the oppresive Saddam regime, can you. Yes, that was a statement, not a question.

I wont even comment on Isreal.

As I said, he has not appointed the neocons - literally the 'Project for a New Century' leaders who were very pro-war for American hegemony around the world, the people who wrote Clinton telling him to start the war with Iraq that Bush quickly did. He's appointed far better people.

He has continued to deal with the wars he inherited, reducing our role in Iraq while increasing it in Afghanistan as he said he would. He has not started any new major ground wars; he has not started any new illegal wars of aggression similar to Iraq; he has not had the aggressive policies of the Bush administration about war for the sake of 'American power projection' to the extent of the Bush administration. Like other issues, some would criticizes some of what he has done, but it's a big difference.

And yes, you can argue that there were benefits to removing Saddam. But the approach Bush took was to illegally start an aggressive war.

It can be argued there were better approaches; admittedly, just not having that war had a price, too. But the benefit of not starting an illegal war is important.

True, he has not ADDED tax cuts. But, after looking as his appointments from the banking industry, and by continuing those tax cuts, its CLEAR who Obama represents, isnt it? Oh and as far him saying he wont do it again...fuck man, really? He also said he would close GITMO lol.

Let's be clear that while liberals oppose his compromising with Republicans to extend the tax cuts temporarily - remember, Republicans pushed to make them permanent and he refused - his position was to not extend them at all, and Republicans irresponsibly threatened massive harms to the country - such as killing his entire stimulus package, not to mention unemployment - if he did not do so. Again, Bush would have happily made them permanent AND not done the good parts.

He put brakes on the Bush policies. To repeat, there's room for criticism.

Uh, Obama created the Nation Declassification Center. Does that need an explaination? I suggest you Google "obama decalssifies documents".

I will admit Im unaware of Bush "gutting the Freedom of Information Act". I am aware, however, of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, sponsored by Harry Reid (he's a Democrat, BTW) which has some very good provisions in it.

Then I'll explain what Bush did that Obama reversed. For the history of the FOIA (I think, at least a long time), there has been a policy for government agencies to attempt to cooperate with FOIA requests; they're only allowed to deny them if there's a clear harm to the public interest.

Bush reversed that. He issued an executive order instructing the entire federal government to NOT comply with any FOIA requests possible, and to only comply if it was clearly absolutely legally required, and said that the Justice Department policy would be to defend anyone who denied a request. We don't need to even get into his canceling the release of his father's Presidential papers.

That I agree with.

The restrictions and conditions he put in place are non-consequential. He has failed to address the issues that pose a primary problem in our financial market: derivitives. You do know, dont you, of many of Obama's nominations by former Goldman Sachs execs, dont you? And these people are who crafted the...uh...bailout. And how about the Chair of the SEC Mary Schapiro who REFUSES to ban naked short selling and other market manipulation tactics. You can read her sordid career along with her appointments from the Madoff family on wiki. If he was serious about REAL financial reform, he would clean house of those who helped cause it. Instead, he either brings them on to his staff or keeps the status quo in place. Disgusting.

Oh, and business as its always been.

On this example, I have to say the brakes were put on pretty lightly. He has not done nearly what he should on Wall Street.

But it's still a lot more than Bush would have done.

The Bush administration was a partner to the 'hands off' approach that I think is less so now.

I agree with this, although it's not in my personal top 10 list. Thats fine if its yours though.

How about the Medicare first-time hard cap on spending? Obama's criticism of Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal are disingenuous. Whereas Ryan's cuts would take effect for those turning 65 before 2022, Obama's cap is immediate. And whereas Ryan's savings would be directed back into Medicare, Obama's savings would be diverted into new entitlements for younger people. There are good and bad to each plan, but to cherry pick one thing without looking at the elephant in the room is partisan at best.

It's fair to discuss the Democrats' plan versus Republicans', but my point was correct about the improvement to lowering drug costs; Bush made the drug company giveaway his #1 domestic priority. If I understand the policy, Democrats' spending cuts are aimed at providers and they plan to leave the benefits unchanged; this is a far cry from the Republican proposal that goes from something like a $24,000 benefit to a $16,000 payment for a private plan, the $8,000 savings spent on a tax cut for the rich.

Democrats may well have to cut more from Medicare - but they are clearly stronger supporters of a higher level of care.

There's a good list of benefits from the Obama bill, while Bush and the Republicans were doing the opposite.

TL;DR: Obama is Bush on steroids on the important issues. As another poster said, he didnt put the brakes on anything...he missed and floored the gas.

[/SIZE]

[/SIZE]

[/SIZE]

[/SIZE]

[/SIZE]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

That's a ridiculous 'summary'. You haven't shown Obama was as bad on, much less worse on, any of these issues overall than Bush - much less all of them.