MORE Really Bad Obama Appointments: Rendition and Torture

Obama never gave any indication that he would govern from the left. In fact, he stated opposite from the very beginning, which is what caught the attention of independents and moderate conservatives. It appears to me that he is doing exactly what he said he would. He's not abandoning the liberals, he's just standing by his word.
 
Chapdog said:
This is where he is on the chart:
s080_030.gif
Click to expand...

LOL

I suppose it depends how much faith you have in a chart to define your politics.
 
Chapdog said:
Im not surprised at how hawkish he is being. I suspected from beginning no way we going to abandon IRAQ regardless of obama, mccain, or hillary. As far as the other saber rattling he has to come across as tough walking into office.
Click to expand...

WRONG

Again, you haven't been keeping up. We are going to leave Iraq IN SPOIUTE of Obama because the Iraqi people demand that we get the fuck out of their country

During the primaries Obama said he would get US troops out by the end of 2008 .. but that was just one of the many, many bullshit things he said to get the nomination.
 
TexasMeg said:
Obama never gave any indication that he would govern from the left. In fact, he stated opposite from the very beginning, which is what caught the attention of independents and moderate conservatives. It appears to me that he is doing exactly what he said he would. He's not abandoning the liberals, he's just standing by his word.
Click to expand...

In fact, he campainged by hitting Mccain over the head, every day, for supporting deregulation. He then got into office, and picked, to a man, an entire economic team that actually created deregulation. McCain could have picked any one, or all, of these guys.

so in fact, it's republicans who should be pissed. Looks to me like he beat your guy by calling him the same thing he is.
 
blackascoal said:
WRONG

Again, you haven't been keeping up. We are going to leave Iraq IN SPOIUTE of Obama because the Iraqi people demand that we get the fuck out of their country

During the primaries Obama said he would get US troops out by the end of 2008 .. but that was just one of the many, many bullshit things he said to get the nomination.
Click to expand...

I would be shocked if we walked out of Iraq like we did Vietnam. We built permanent bases in Iraq. Its the second largest oil reserve left on the planet.
 
TexasMeg said:
Obama never gave any indication that he would govern from the left. In fact, he stated opposite from the very beginning, which is what caught the attention of independents and moderate conservatives. It appears to me that he is doing exactly what he said he would. He's not abandoning the liberals, he's just standing by his word.
Click to expand...

Who here has stated Obama should govern from the left?

What he said was that Bush economic policies got us in the mess we're in today .. then he appoints the architects of that mess.
 
I dont know what the democrats thought they were going to get out of obama. Seems that anything short of socialism would not be acceptable.
 
blackascoal said:
Let me guess .. you didn't vote for Bush, but you felt real comfortable criticizing him anyway.

Your comment is ridiculous because whether I voted for him or not .. and I didn't .. it's still my country and my children will be affected by his policies. Since when in the hell do you have to vote for someone before you criticize them?

Bush didn't appoint Summers because he knew the controversy it would cause .. the same controvery when Clinton tried to appoint him ... and I'm betting that had Bush appointed him, you would be one of those who criticized the appointment .. that is unless you believe that women are inately stupod and non-white lif is less valuable.

On second thought .. maybe you wouldn't have criticized Summers if Bush appointed him.
Click to expand...

No, he would have, and elequently so.

I think two different things on Sumners - he's a fucking deregulating asshole who along with Rubin, started this shit, which the bush people gleefully finished. That makes him, or should make him, unqualified.

But I also believe that no Republican could get away with appointing a guy who said the things this nut did about minorities and women.

Is that right? No.
 
Chapdog said:
I dont know what the democrats thought they were going to get out of obama. Seems that anything short of socialism would not be acceptable.
Click to expand...

OK one more time - CAN WE HAVE ONE LIBERAL APPOINTED?

what are you talking about, it's like talking to a two year old?

I keep stating, calmly, over and over, no one is asking for across the board liberals appointments - never mind socialism! - can you explain to me why we shouldn't have one, ONE, brilliant, nobel prize winning, right about everything over the past ten years, liberal thinker?

And you have yet to offer and answer. You can't answer it, so you continue to say the same (false) thing: LIberals won't be happy until he institutes socialism.
 
Chapdog said:
I would be shocked if we walked out of Iraq like we did Vietnam. We built permanent bases in Iraq. Its the second largest oil reserve left on the planet.
Click to expand...

We didn't "walk out of Vietnam" .. we were pushed out of Vietnam. Did you somehow forget our Saigon Moment?

Wanna see what democracy looks like?

r1306355167.jpg
 
Darla said:
But there isn't to me.

Sumners is unacceptable regardless of who appoints him. I'm sorry you feel it's ok as long as Obama does it.
Click to expand...

I didnt say either way. I was just saying that the outrage dial is set by the media and the civil leaders of this country based on who the comments come from. D = low. R = high.
 
Darla said:
No, he would have, and elequently so.

I think two different things on Sumners - he's a fucking deregulating asshole who along with Rubin, started this shit, which the bush people gleefully finished. That makes him, or should make him, unqualified.

But I also believe that no Republican could get away with appointing a guy who said the things this nut did about minorities and women.

Is that right? No.
Click to expand...

No they couldn't .. which is the very reason why Bush didn't appoint him .. although Clinton slid him into Treasury through the back door .. which was before he made some of his most outrageous statements ,, but this son-of-a-bitch was toxic even when Clinton chose him.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Oh please. If he'd selected a bunch of people who didn't know his way around Washington, he'd be totally lost. Some degree of pragmatism is involved with these pics. He still has to work within the Washington establishment.
Click to expand...

This is why our country will continue its downward spiral in to tyranny. Because of retarded dumbasses like you.

The constitution was originally written so that people would be elected, serve a term or two, then go home and let someone else do it. We've elected the same tired bloodlines in to government positions for so long, nobody can think outside the box about real change. Obama is not going to change anything, especially with long time experienced government people running the show again, thanks to your philosophy of 'we need people who know government or we'd be lost' shit.

want change? stop electing the same fucking tyrants over and over again. Otherwise you're just asking to have chains put on you.
 
Darla said:
OK one more time - CAN WE HAVE ONE LIBERAL APPOINTED?

what are you talking about, it's like talking to a two year old?

I keep stating, calmly, over and over, no one is asking for across the board liberals appointments - never mind socialism! - can you explain to me why we shouldn't have one, ONE, brilliant, nobel prize winning, right about everything over the past ten years, liberal thinker?

And you have yet to offer and answer. You can't answer it, so you continue to say the same (false) thing: LIberals won't be happy until he institutes socialism.
Click to expand...

I think a some of his appointments are pretty left so far with a few centrists. Who is an example of what you would like to see appointed?
 
Darla said:
Now, let's fast forward. There can be no doubt, regardless of who likes it, who doesn't like it - Barack Obama owes his nomination to the left of his party. And if he isn't nominated, he doesn't become President. Period.

It was liberals who gained him that nomination. Liberals.

And I guess the big joke now is; when barack obama became president, all the liberals thought he was going to hire them. He hired zero liberals. giggle.

I am pragmatic. I did not expect raging leftists, or across the board liberal appointments.

He has appointed not one liberal. Not one. People say, oh his economic team is there to carry out his vision, not their own. Yeah? Well, why does he need ALL center-right economic people to carry out his vision? Where is the liberal counter-balance? Did we not earn even one of them? Not even one? No Galbraith? No Stiglitz? No Krugman? We are talking about brilliant economists here. And they were right. They were right. It's a mistake. It's also really disloyal. You don't owe everything, but you owe something.

Also, and this c annot be repeated enough: These are the people who got us where we are today. Remember Einstein. He knew a thing or three.
Click to expand...

This is just food for thought, but do you think that he might be appointing moderates in order to HAVE a counter balance to HIS more liberal positions? Something to keep him in check so that he doesn't pull a Clinton in his first two years perhaps?

again, just a thought...
 
Bush governed for his 1st term via the 51% rule, and the need to "pay back" the right wing of his party, who he "owed."

Obama doesn't "owe" the left-wing anything more than he owes everyone who cast their vote for him, and even those who didn't: and that is only to govern as best as he can, implement policies that will actually help people and get America back on track. That's his job right now.

Presidencies get seriously damaged when they try to pay back constituencies and focus their attention on that. That's not what the job is about.
 
Onceler said:
Bush governed for his 1st term via the 51% rule, and the need to "pay back" the right wing of his party, who he "owed."

Obama doesn't "owe" the left-wing anything more than he owes everyone who cast their vote for him, and even those who didn't: and that is only to govern as best as he can, implement policies that will actually help people and get America back on track. That's his job right now.

Presidencies get seriously damaged when they try to pay back constituencies and focus their attention on that. That's not what the job is about.
Click to expand...

What side of the political spectrum is this from? ..

Ex-CIA Officials Tied to Rendition Program and Faulty Iraq Intel Tapped to Head Obama’s Intelligence Transition Team

Don't tell me you're against torture or the fraud that led us into Iraq and countless innocent people to their graves.

Don't even suggest that bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top