Nixon made legal

[blackangst1]

I apologize for the strange non linking. I wanted to formulate a detailed response, therefore did so in Word as opposed to the forum where it likely would have timed out. I'll clean up this reply.

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.

Thats bullshit Craig. Like it or not, Isreal is one of our biggest allys, and Obama has single handedly destroyed what relationship we had with them. And how about the UK? After the Falklands were invaded in the 80's the UK lost hundreds of lives restoring British Rule. Then, our dear Secretary of State moves us from a position of neutrality to encouraging talks between the UK and Argentina, after over a decade of Argentina crying foul. And then, to add insult to injury, she signed on to an Organisation of American States (OAS) resolution (LINK) To quote the article, "The United States should have firmly rejected the resolution as an affront to its closest ally, and as fundamentally against US interests." Or how about the now infamous wikileaks documents showing Obama betraying the UK to appease the Russians in the START program (LINK)? And then there's Obama's quote about France being America's greatest ally rolleyes.

FFS. What would happen if Mexico wanted to sit down and talk about the unfair taking of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas? I suppose the right thing to do would be to at least sit down and talk about it, right?

Sure, Obama may have mended some relationships, but he has destroyed others. He's shit on the UK, thats for certain.

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

mmmmkay. So Obama maybe hasnt hired as many lobbyists etc...mmmmkay...how is Obama's financial policy different from Bush's again? Or, are you just using the "well, it isnt as bad" excuse?

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.

Well, there's still time left in his term so we'll see. Theres no real difference between extending them until further notice and making them permanent. We'll see what he does. But so far, he's THE SAME. He's extended the SAME policies. He's NOT put ANY brakes on preditory lending. He's NOT put any brakes on derivitives trading. Nothing. Nada. The tightening of lending practices has been largely self imposed, not legislated by the Obama administration.

Your comments about FOIA are a bit laughable. You left out alot of key points to Bush's policy (intentionally, Im sure). But know this: The Obama administration has not only declined more FOIA requests than Bush's last year under the new organization (moving the ombudsman under the Justice Dept), but declines a higher percentage. Make no mistake about it. This is NOT the most transparent administration ever.

LINK

One year later, Obama’s requests for transparency have apparently gone unheeded. In fact a provision in the Freedom of Information Act law that allows the government to hide records that detail its internal decision-making has been invoked by Obama agencies more often in the past year than during the final year of President George W. Bush.

Major agencies cited that exemption to refuse records at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, compared with 47,395 times during President George W. Bush’s final full budget year, according to annual FOIA reports filed by federal agencies.

An Associated Press review of Freedom of Information Act reports filed by 17 major agencies found that the use of nearly every one of the law’s nine exemptions to withhold information from the public rose in fiscal year 2009, which ended last October.

The AP review comes on the heels of another bit of government transparency news: that the Obama Administration has threatened to veto a congressional intelligence bill because it objects to efforts to increase intelligence oversight.

Among other things, the proposed legislation would subject intelligence agencies to General Accountability Office review. US intelligence agencies are currently immune from review by the Congressional auditing office.

Now, such denials have increased by 49%, and that’s not counting whether overall requests have increased or decreased. Let’s try to guess: would the press be making more inquiries during Obama’s term in office than Bush’s, or fewer? To their credit, Raw Story has that data, too:

All told, the 17 agencies reviewed by AP reported getting 444,924 FOIA requests in fiscal 2009, compared with 493,610 in fiscal 2008.
​

Not just fewer, but over ten percent fewer requests. Putting those numbers together, the Bush administration had a denial rate of 9.6%. The Obama administration has a denial rate of 15.9%. Which President promised more transparency? And why is the press 10% less interested in the inner workings of government now than it was in 2008?

And your Medicare comments...I think youre a bit confused as to what the Dem's proposal will cut, and when.

Even your beloved Common Dreams site has numerous commentaries about how Obama is not significantly different than Bush. I'd be happy to link them if you'd like.

 

[Craig234]

Blackangst, I'm tired of this.

You can't remember what your own question is (or couldn't write a question that meant what you wanted).

I said Obama put the brakes on a lot of Bush's worst policies. That is correct. You take that and respond, 'the he's not as bad excuse'.

If President 1 does something bad as a regular practice 500 times and President 2 criticizes the practice and does it 25 times, that's putting a brake on the practice.

It's not an 'excuse', it's a fact, and you are obnoxious with the things you say.

You said you did not know about Bush's FOIA policy. I explained it to you. You responded:

"You left out alot of key points to Bush's policy (intentionally, Im sure)."

So something you 'don't know about', you are saying I 'left out a lot', you don't say WHAT it was, and then you make accusations.

I don't want to put up with your crap, and so what could have been a somewhat useful discussion, is done.

 

[werepossum]

What's REALLY frightening is the admittedly slight chance that the OP might be running around in the general public with access to pointy objects.

Punic Wars indeed.

 

[blackangst1]

Blackangst, I'm tired of this.

You can't remember what your own question is (or couldn't write a question that meant what you wanted).

I said Obama put the brakes on a lot of Bush's worst policies. That is correct. You take that and respond, 'the he's not as bad excuse'.

If President 1 does something bad as a regular practice 500 times and President 2 criticizes the practice and does it 25 times, that's putting a brake on the practice.

It's not an 'excuse', it's a fact, and you are obnoxious with the things you say.

You said you did not know about Bush's FOIA policy. I explained it to you. You responded:

"You left out alot of key points to Bush's policy (intentionally, Im sure)."

So something you 'don't know about', you are saying I 'left out a lot', you don't say WHAT it was, and then you make accusations.

I don't want to put up with your crap, and so what could have been a somewhat useful discussion, is done.

Obnoxious? lol fine. I simply went through YOUR "top 10" list and broke each one down, and effectively have proven that although Obama initially tapped the brakes, he has steamed ahead full gas on many of the same issues you brought up. You dont like it, and in your typical elitist way, have bowed out.

Thats fine. Have a nice day.

 

[FuzzyBee]

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.

Wow. You're so far from reality. Perhaps this article could help: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/report-obama-administration-rewards-big-donors-jobs/story?id=13849435

Fred Schulte, one of the authors of the report, said that there is a difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration.

"We did look at the administration of George Bush, which was widely criticized for appointing donors to these kinds of posts, and they had about the same number in four years that the Obama administration has had in two years," Schulte said.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Smart Sir Craig ran away.
Smartly ran away away.
When the truth reared it's ugly head,
He smartly turned his tail and fled.
Yes, smart Sir Craig turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Smartly**** taking to his feet,
He beat a very smart retreat.
Smartest of the smaaaaart, Sir Craig!