Hey Net, I agree with you and am in pretty much the same area as you... I would like, however, to point out what runs your opponents' mindset. Fear. Now, remember, fear is natural and is even necessary to survival. We are running into the problem of a world with finate resources, and that world is getting ever smaller. America is losing its once mighty grip on the things we have had for so long we assumed we were entitled to the wealth.

Now, blame is thrown all around except back at those who hurried along the process to begin with (Voters and their demands for low taxes and high services... Humans and their undending need to consume, etcetera...) So, social security has been raided to pay, money borrowed, etcetera. The Oceans overfished. Dead zones. Farm land is being compacted... Our debt is soaring... And the piper has to be paid at some point.

We must realize all our blank checks were foolish. This cannot be blamed on the half-black president--though he is a reasonable target. This must be blamed on our grandparents and parents and so on and so forth. And of course--us! Most of our generation does not undersand why things happen the way they do and yet, they are all about fixes... Sad...

>> ^NetRunner:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since June 27th, 2008" href="http://videosift.com/member/Winstonfield_Pennypacker">Winstonfield_Pennypacker, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since August 1st, 2008" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK">GeeSussFreeK, if the President asks for something from someone, and they voluntarily agree to it, how is it some sort of breach of executive power? He didn't exert any legal authority at all.
For example, BP's own press release says they agreed to establish the fund.
Now, if you guys have some sort of actual evidence that BP was resistant until Obama threatened them, making this a coercive agreement, bring it forth.
Otherwise you're just making bullshit accusations based on your own misguided ideas of who Obama is, based on lies trumped up by the propaganda arms of the corporate overlords (i.e. conservative media) to make it seem like BP is some sort of victim in all this.

Yes, but what about the fears!

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?
Let's just start with this. Again, from BP's summary of the agreement:

The fund will be available to satisfy legitimate claims including natural resource damages and state and local response costs. Fines and penalties will be excluded from the fund and paid separately. Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP.
The ICF will be administered by Ken Feinberg. The ICF will adjudicate on all Oil Pollution Act and tort claims excluding all federal and state claims.

The idea here is to prevent what happened with Exxon Valdez, where Exxon fault paying claims for 20 years until the SCOTUS cut the payouts by 80%, and many claimants had died.
The idea is that this creates a giant facility for doing out-of-court settlements, something the majority of claimants and BP would do anyways. It doesn't prevent claimants or BP from going through the courts, it mostly just means there's a government-run escrow being set up to ensure that BP has set aside the funds to pay claims, and adds a 3rd option for processing claims (the Independent Claims Facility), which people can use, or not.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I worry of Presidents taking the roles of the courts, once your are the cops and the judge, your democracy is in trouble. I worry more here than I am accusing. It sets a dangerous precedent. Moreover, if something goes "bad" with the escrow, who handles it then? The President and BP again? Or do the courts then have step in and take something over that they never had any say in how it worked? In other words, he is going outside the way things work. And I think he did so to respond to the moronic claim that his administration wasn't doing enough or crying dragon tears.
Last part first, I agree that the whole thing seems like a somewhat meaningless capitulation to perverse media narratives.
That said, the agreement was never meant to deprive anyone of their right to lay claims in court. Basically, it was just a way to A) make sure the money is removed from BP's bank account before claims are processed B) give claimants a 3rd alternative for getting claims assessed (aside from the courts and direct negotiation with BP), and C) give both BP and Obama a PR win for being proactive on the topic.
I guarantee you that Obama will be in a world of hurt if this does become a backdoor way to deprive people of their right to sue in court -- the left and right would come down on him like a ton of bricks.
The key thing that irks me about hearing this fear about creeping executive power from anyone on the right is that there's this huge drama about "taking" money from BP (as in, asking for voluntary contributions to an escrow fund), but no real sign that any of those people want to deprive Obama of the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial. That's the point Colbert made in his segment on this same topic.
Again, this is bullshit intended to try to make BP out to be some sort of victim of a fictitiously tyrannical Obama administration, when I think the safe bet is that Obama sat down with Hayward and said "look, here's a way for you to really show people you're on the up and up with paying the money..."

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?

Let's just start with this. Again, from BP's summary of the agreement:

The fund will be available to satisfy legitimate claims including natural resource damages and state and local response costs. Fines and penalties will be excluded from the fund and paid separately. Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP.

The ICF will be administered by Ken Feinberg. The ICF will adjudicate on all Oil Pollution Act and tort claims excluding all federal and state claims.

The idea here is to prevent what happened with Exxon Valdez, where Exxon fault paying claims for 20 years until the SCOTUS cut the payouts by 80%, and many claimants had died.

The idea is that this creates a giant facility for doing out-of-court settlements, something the majority of claimants and BP would do anyways. It doesn't prevent claimants or BP from going through the courts, it mostly just means there's a government-run escrow being set up to ensure that BP has set aside the funds to pay claims, and adds a 3rd option for processing claims (the Independent Claims Facility), which people can use, or not.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I worry of Presidents taking the roles of the courts, once your are the cops and the judge, your democracy is in trouble. I worry more here than I am accusing. It sets a dangerous precedent. Moreover, if something goes "bad" with the escrow, who handles it then? The President and BP again? Or do the courts then have step in and take something over that they never had any say in how it worked? In other words, he is going outside the way things work. And I think he did so to respond to the moronic claim that his administration wasn't doing enough or crying dragon tears.

Last part first, I agree that the whole thing seems like a somewhat meaningless capitulation to perverse media narratives.

That said, the agreement was never meant to deprive anyone of their right to lay claims in court. Basically, it was just a way to A) make sure the money is removed from BP's bank account before claims are processed B) give claimants a 3rd alternative for getting claims assessed (aside from the courts and direct negotiation with BP), and C) give both BP and Obama a PR win for being proactive on the topic.

I guarantee you that Obama will be in a world of hurt if this does become a backdoor way to deprive people of their right to sue in court -- the left and right would come down on him like a ton of bricks.

The key thing that irks me about hearing this fear about creeping executive power from anyone on the right is that there's this huge drama about "taking" money from BP (as in, asking for voluntary contributions to an escrow fund), but no real sign that any of those people want to deprive Obama of the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial. That's the point Colbert made in his segment on this same topic.

Again, this is bullshit intended to try to make BP out to be some sort of victim of a fictitiously tyrannical Obama administration, when I think the safe bet is that Obama sat down with Hayward and said "look, here's a way for you to really show people you're on the up and up with paying the money..."

I live near the coast, BP isn't a victim. The point is it it out of place. Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility? I don't even care if it was a threat, and I never assumed it was. And Like I have said before, worse things in the world are happening. I worry of Presidents taking the roles of the courts, once your are the cops and the judge, your democracy is in trouble. I worry more here than I am accusing. It sets a dangerous precedent. Moreover, if something goes "bad" with the escrow, who handles it then? The President and BP again? Or do the courts then have step in and take something over that they never had any say in how it worked? In other words, he is going outside the way things work. And I think he did so to respond to the moronic claim that his administration wasn't doing enough or crying dragon tears.

I want to avoid the situation where if you have a problem, you go to the president instead of the courts. Moreover, I don't want the president poking his head in when it is the courts that are supposed to be handling it. I would say the same about congress trying to do the job of the courts or the executive, but really, it has been the executives power that has been growing without bound the most.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker, @GeeSussFreeK, if the President asks for something from someone, and they voluntarily agree to it, how is it some sort of breach of executive power? He didn't exert any legal authority at all.

For example, BP's own press release says they agreed to establish the fund.

Now, if you guys have some sort of actual evidence that BP was resistant until Obama threatened them, making this a coercive agreement, bring it forth.

Otherwise you're just making bullshit accusations based on your own misguided ideas of who Obama is, based on lies trumped up by the propaganda arms of the corporate overlords (i.e. conservative media) to make it seem like BP is some sort of victim in all this.

What can Obama do about those by himself? He could go after the Democratic caucus a little more than he has been. I don't think I'm the only one who noticed that Obama's rhetorical prowess (or his willingness to use it) has substantially diminished since the election.

Regarding the oil gusher - he could've NOT allowed for the expansion of offshore oil drilling in the first place (remember that?). I know it wouldn't have prevented the current fiasco, but it would have shown some backbone. He could have appointed someone competent (and not an oil industry stooge) to oversee the issuing of drilling and safety permits (I know you know about those).

Your are right - Congress is where most of the substantive issues of the day are dealt with. But Obama has such enormous political capital that he could use to sway them on many issues, but chooses to play it safe for fear of losing the 2012 election. That's no way to lead.

I like the guy too. But I like him alot less since hearing about many of the things he has done (and more importantly, hasn't done) since taking office.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Throbbin:
Either way, Obama still hasn't done anything really substantive on a variety of issues (Climate Change, Wall Street, that ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER, military spending, Iraq, Executive Powers, etc.).
What can Obama do about any of those by himself, particularly the "ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER"?
Much as I like the guy, it's not as if he can just swim down there and pinch off the pipe, superman-style.
That's really a list of things you're mad at Congress for failing to act on.
Hopefully your list will get one item shorter tomorrow -- they're holding a cloture vote on the Wall Street Reform package tomorrow (and all signs point to it passing with ease).

>> ^Throbbin:

Either way, Obama still hasn't done anything really substantive on a variety of issues (Climate Change, Wall Street, that ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER, military spending, Iraq, Executive Powers, etc.).

What can Obama do about any of those by himself, particularly the "ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER"?

Much as I like the guy, it's not as if he can just swim down there and pinch off the pipe, superman-style.

That's really a list of things you're mad at Congress for failing to act on.

Hopefully your list will get one item shorter tomorrow -- they're holding a cloture vote on the Wall Street Reform package tomorrow (and all signs point to it passing with ease).

Either way, Obama still hasn't done anything really substantive on a variety of issues (Climate Change, Wall Street, that ENORMOUS FUCKING OIL GUSHER, military spending, Iraq, Executive Powers, etc.).

And Canada still has a Conservative government.

FML.

@NetRunner The systems are very different. The US at the federal level elections have more of a winner takes all and the elections are set every four years. When a US president is voted in they have more executive powers. Whereas in within a multi-party parliamentary system they need the confidence of the house (the majority of those voted in from different areas around the country to pass legislation) to continue their term as leader. So in a parliamentary system in a minority government situation what happens more times than not is they will hold a non-confidence motion (meaning minority parties don't have confidence in the ruling party) and their will be a new election. It's a different system of checks and balances. I know that was the way the senate in the US was set up but it doesn't serve much of it's original purpose anymore. The president is more like an elected king for four years. Being from Canada unfortunately we've been moving in that same direction of the US.

I'm sure most mainstream Germans though the Nazi movement was just a far right fringe movement too.

When times are tough it's important to find a weak minority to target for all that middle class frustration.

After all, who would expect the government to suddenly vote Hitler emergency executive powers without public consultation?

>> ^blankfist:
Or 6, Democrats should recognize the executive branch was never designed to be as powerful as it has become, reduce the executive branch's powers and once again give the majority of power back over to congress, stop signing statements, end the wars, revoke the Patriot Act completely without simply altering its text, cut military spending drastically, close (at least a majority of) military bases abroad, recognize income tax is a direct tax therefore unconstitutional and revoke the 16th Amendment, and recognize I'm an adult and no longer need a "nanny".
There. I'd vote for that one.


That's option one. You don't seem to understand that hiding behind Constitutional originalism doesn't fool most people. It's a roundabout way of saying that no matter how many people want progressive policy, it's all unconstitutional and people who try to enact it are in violation of the supreme law of the land.

In other words, roll over and die, because conservatives deserve permanent rule.

I think trying to pin expansion of executive power on Democrats is quite the overreach. I'd agree that they haven't done anything to reduce it, but that's a wholly different critique. I'd also agree that they should do about half of what you say (stop signing statements, end wars, revoke patriot act, cut military spending).

You do need a nanny pretty badly though.

You clearly didn't read my post. The site I listed discredits the video. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't hold it past Dick Cheney to knowingly allow this to happen. The flight hit the pentagon almost an hour after the flights hit the towers. Protocol is to scramble and shoot down any civilian flight off its flight path and that isn't responding to hails, particularly if it is headed towards a high valued military target. For Dick Cheney that should be an easy call. If it wasn't, I seriously question whether he was qualified to be in that position.
At the very least, the south side of the building should have been evacuated as the target was moving in, not after.
I agree the question you pulled out is bullshit, but questions about exactly what orders were given to whom, when, are not unreasonable questions. These are even more relevant if what we'd like to understand how to avoid this sort of thing in the future.
I'm not willfully ignorant as you imply. I won't entertain fantastic stories about fly overs, or detonation squads. I just wouldn't hold it past these particular assholes to allow something like this to happen. They didn't need to do anything active, just don't give the order to fire.
In my mind... the "truthers" are getting paid/encouraged/coverage in order to keep the heat off the real question of was the negligence criminal or plain vanilla incompetence?
FDNY and all that... but the chickenhawk, neocons can go to hell. The fact of the matter is we've spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's blow job than we have the largest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor, accusations of human rights abuses, and unconstitutional expansions of executive power by the previous administration.
I ask you sir...
srsly?

I did read your post and yes, it does discredit the video, but it brings up other questions just as absurd.

The protocol was never been to shoot down any civilian aircraft that deviates from flight plans and doesn't respond to hails. That is absolutely false and you know it. That policy may have been tightened and changed since these events, but before 9/11 there is no way that the government would shoot down a commercial airliner for those reasons. The simple fact is that no one knew what was going on and where these planes were headed until it was too late.

Like I said before, things were absolutely chaotic that day and people were trying to use their best judgment based on what information they had, which was minimal at best. Watch any of the excellent Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel documentaries about that day and you'll see how little people had to go on. It is easy to look with hindsight and second guess what people should have done, but in the moment, things are not that simple.

Dick Cheney had no say regarding shooting down anything, so I'm not sure why you are going after him, aside from your obvious anger. Belief in conspiracy theories are so dangerous because they essentially become like a religion: people believe what they believe because they believe it and nothing can persuade them otherwise once they have decided to believe. Even a "moderate" conspiracy theorist like yourself must realize that you have no real evidence to back up your claims, especially claims that the government was complicit, passively or otherwise.

>> ^IronDwarf:
The answer to nearly all of those questions would be something to the effect of that day was utterly chaotic and the US was grossly unprepared for an attack of that kind. Other questions like "Why did Flight 77 hit a part of the building opposite from the high command and mostly empty and under renovation, with majority of victims being civilian accountants?" don't even make sense to ask after the fact. The things that happened that day happened because the people flying those planes made it happen that way.
I'm sorry, but anyone who actually buys into any of this conspiracy bullshit is not looking at all of the material available and is either purposefully or unknowingly keeping themselves ignorant. I know these videos can be persuasive, but they are not giving you all the information; they are picking and choosing what fits their particular theory. For example, I felt like I knew for a certainty what had happened on November 22, 1963 after watching Oliver Stone's "JFK", but after reading more about it I realized the theory was complete shit, no matter how well made and persuasive the movie was.


You clearly didn't read my post. The site I listed discredits the video. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't hold it past Dick Cheney to knowingly allow this to happen. The flight hit the pentagon almost an hour after the flights hit the towers. Protocol is to scramble and shoot down any civilian flight off its flight path and that isn't responding to hails, particularly if it is headed towards a high valued military target. For Dick Cheney that should be an easy call. If it wasn't, I seriously question whether he was qualified to be in that position.

At the very least, the south side of the building should have been evacuated as the target was moving in, not after.

I agree the question you pulled out is bullshit, but questions about exactly what orders were given to whom, when, are not unreasonable questions. These are even more relevant if what we'd like to understand how to avoid this sort of thing in the future.

I'm not willfully ignorant as you imply. I won't entertain fantastic stories about fly overs, or detonation squads. I just wouldn't hold it past these particular assholes to allow something like this to happen. They didn't need to do anything active, just don't give the order to fire.

In my mind... the "truthers" are getting paid/encouraged/coverage in order to keep the heat off the real question of was the negligence criminal or plain vanilla incompetence?

FDNY and all that... but the chickenhawk, neocons can go to hell. The fact of the matter is we've spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's blow job than we have the largest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor, accusations of human rights abuses, and unconstitutional expansions of executive power by the previous administration.

I ask you sir...
srsly?

obama is just past the 100 day mark,so ill reserve judgment on his performance.
but i have to say mr turley is spot on with his assesment,and brings up some very troubling points.however,there are a few that mr turley did not bring up that still bother me.
1.the recinding of executive powers garnered by cheney during the bush admin.
2.patriot act 1+2,victory act 1+2,MCA should be put out to pasture.
3.where is the reconfiguring the powers of the DHS and the TSA?those agencies wield entirely TOO much power.
other than those points i totally agree with mr turley.how can obama be an agent for change when he resorts to the very tactics that brought down the GOP,and helped get HIM elected?
onlookers would be right to call us "hypocrites".
sighs...every time i have a tiny hope of restoring america's integrity,they pull the carpet out.
then again..i am charlie brown.
this is just wrong and does little to promote confidence in those countries who view us with understandable skepticism.

the misuse of the terms "socialism,fascism" in order to incite feelings of dread and fear has been a fear-mongering tool of political media types for decades.
the manipulation becomes evident when the definition of those words is known.
understanding history,and the definition of the words being bantered about on order to sway public opinion,is the best defense to counter such manipulations.
this was not the capitolism that milton friedman and adam smith had in mind.
they envisioned a equal playing field,a free market where survival of the fittest not only brought wealth,but innovation.
not the constricted,stacked-deck,bloated corporations-sitting in their own decaying malfeasance economy we have today.
the only nod i will give to the "fascist" analogy is how cozy corporate america sits with legislature.
i would like to see the obama camp recind many of the executive powers that dick cheney aquired for the executive branch during bush's two terms.
that in itself is a danger.
im none too comfortable with a politician with THAT many executive powers,
and "trust me" is not an acceptable slogan..
cuz i dont trust politicians.
put it in writing,make it binding,then...maybe ill trust.