Politicians.. gotta love em...


fffFFFFfffFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUU

*news
*waronterror
*law
*blocked

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by NetRunner.

Adding video to channels (Law, News, Waronterror) - requested by NetRunner.

I doubt this sift needs it, but that's a *quality skewering. Ignoring the R or D after their names, we sure have some scary stuff going on.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Kevlar.

Do Obama fans have anything to say about this? I'll go first...I voted for him because he was better than McCain but I knew he wasn't going to change much...or anything that he said. I'm bored of this BS, thanks Obama for proving to everyone that color doesn't mean anything.

mmmh. shocking.

I'm glad to see comedian such as Stewart jump on this.

Change we can believe in!

http://worldaffairs.videosift.com/talk/SSDD-and-Same-Policies-Different-President-Habeus-Denied

http://videosift.com/talk/Extrodinary-Renditon-case-Refused-by-Apellate-Court

Obamas a great speaker... but a pussy in an argument. He always backs down and tries to negotiate.

He's always trying to keep republicans happy even though they hate him... I'm betting once he got in power and found the established beauracracts didn't want the change he was bringing he started to compromise to let them have what they wanted.

I think "change we can believe in" won't ever be the executive branch, but only if there is a major shift in the legislative; for instance, starting with term limits for Congress.

Hmm, I guess they really are all part of the same club. And Americans put up with it. Country is fucked.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

But wait - Jon Stewart is a schil for the Left, so this post is obviously fake.

I'm disappointed in Obama's performance so far too - but do you think you would be disappointed less with McCain and Palin? The horror.

>> ^dag:

But wait - Jon Stewart is a schil for the Left, so this post is obviously fake.
I'm disappointed in Obama's performance so far too - but do you think you would be disappointed less with McCain and Palin? The horror.


It's OK dag, we got court decisions to prove the whole scandal. If the ostriches don't believe that, well, we never really had a Republic in the first place.

So in countries like NZ and Australia (where I'm from) - if we don't like the two big parties we vote for an alternative, like the greens. For example in New Zealand they have 7 parties with a share of the power and 7 native (Maori) electorates as well, so I think it keeps the larger parties somewhat honest (note that I said somewhat!).

In America from what I understand, the two party system is not enforced by law, how difficult is it for smaller parties to get a share of the power? Surely the decades upon decades of the crap you have put up with from those in power must get upsetting, or are too many people too brainwashed at this point by the vast media campaigns?

It just seems to me, that there is a silent acceptance by a lot of people over there that if one party (i.e. the Dems) are doing bad, they have no option but to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of looking for a real solution.

I care because this bullcrap trickles down to us, we get stuck fighting in the same wars, we face the same obesity problems now, we have enough of our own problems already, we don't want these extra ones. Not that I can say we have been perfect, we come from a history where we drank tea and killed the natives while singing god save the queen.

Obama's renditions are different than Bush's in that :

* Bush stuck people in Guantanamo for years with no end in sight or sent them to foreign countries to be tortured. Obama decried that.

* Obama wants to maintain the ability to do renditions to places like Bagram only if it's
- for short periods of time (not endlessly imprisoning people without a trial)
- not putting them places where it's reasonable to expect they will be tortured
- not doing anything that's against domestic laws, international obligations, US policy, or humane treatment.
- plus he did effectively close Guantanamo imprisonment
- info

Still way too lacking in checks-and-balances protection from abuse for my tastes but you could make a good argument that he's not being hypocritical.

Regarding assassination:

(*) President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning political assassinations in 1976. However, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaida after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the US and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination.

I agree with John Stewart's main point at the end - Obama is leaving this stuff too open to abuse and needs to close possible loopholes right away.

You can make the case that Al-Qaida is a legit military target and as such it's not really an assassination, just warfare. But where do you formalize what groups are "terrorists" and which individuals get lumped in, and how do you decide if a situation is dire enough to assassinate a militant American citizen vs capture and put him on trial? I don't think Obama is likely to let anything nasty happen but that's way too big of a danger to leave out there.

This story got big when Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said this in congressional testimony:

“Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.” He added, “We don’t target people for free speech; we target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”

Again, not crazy reasoning...if an American is hiding in Yemen and plotting to blow up a plane maybe we can blow him up first, but way to wide open to avoid abuse. I'm a big Obama fan but I'm pissed that he's running this free and loose with this stuff. Hopefully it's on his to-do list and nothing nasty will become of it before he's done.

>> ^dag:

But wait - Jon Stewart is a schil for the Left, so this post is obviously fake.
I'm disappointed in Obama's performance so far too - but do you think you would be disappointed less with McCain and Palin? The horror.
I would have been less disappointed with McCain/Palin but that's only because my expectations would be that much lower. Waaay lower.

He's always trying to keep republicans happy even though they hate him.

Bush had to keep Democrats happy even though they hated him too. There is a word for a politician who does whatever he wants over the objections of everyone else. Dictator.

As far as Stewart is concerned? M'eh - nice to see him finally taking a few shots, but he's late to the party. Plus he isn't alarmed at Obama's radicalism or incompetence. No. Like many leftists, Stewart is more upset over 'hypocrisy'. He isn't mad that Obama has death camps or violates the law. He's mad that he's a hypocrite about it. Nice to see Stewart catching up to my analysis, even if it takes him 20 months.

Obama doesn't care about America, or its people. He's a leftist radical from academia who is trying to actualize all the bullcrap theories he and his other college buddies argued about between bong hits. His reaction to the oil spill is a great example. He doesn't care about the oil, or the environment, or business, or people. He just sees this as an excuse to cram Cap & Trade down everyone's throat and so realize another leftist academic pipe-dream (alternative energy).

You can see it every time he opens his flapping yap. He can't stand it when people disagree with him. He doesn't like trying to GOVERN and actually make things work or help people. All he wants to do is hold seminars, give speeches, and run workshops like a good little Alinskyite. He's a small, petty, incompetent, lightweight dilettante. He's out of his league and he knows it. Too bad Stewart - unlike myself - didn't realize this 20 months ago.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

He's always trying to keep republicans happy even though they hate him.
Bush had to keep Democrats happy even though they hated him too. There is a word for a politician who does whatever he wants over the objections of everyone else. Dictator.

So Republican minority = everyone?

The big problem with all of Obama's imperfections is that he's still far better than any offering from the conservative side. =\

Obama was the lesser of two evils, but still, fuck him.

>> ^dag:

But wait - Jon Stewart is a schil for the Left, so this post is obviously fake.
I'm disappointed in Obama's performance so far too - but do you think you would be disappointed less with McCain and Palin? The horror.


Obama isn't even worthy of being called a Liberal.

And this is the part where I say "Haha, way to go statist idiots!"

>> ^dag:

but do you think you would be disappointed less with McCain and Palin? The horror.

Actually, yes. McCain never promised change, only 4 more years of Bushiness. You can't be disappointed if you don't have any expectations.

[edit: and now I see gwiz said the same thing already. oops.]

>> ^alizarin:

Regarding assassination:
() President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning political assassinations in 1976. However, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaida after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the US and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination.
I agree with John Stewart's main point at the end - Obama is leaving this stuff too open to abuse and needs to close possible loopholes right away.
You can make the case that Al-Qaida is a legit military target and as such it's not really an assassination, just warfare. But where do you formalize what groups are "terrorists" and which individuals get lumped in, and how do you decide if a situation is dire enough to assassinate a militant American citizen vs capture and put him on trial? I don't think Obama is likely to let anything nasty happen but that's way too big of a danger to leave out there.
This story got big when Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said this in congressional testimony:
“Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.” He added, “We don’t target people for free speech; we target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”
Again, not crazy reasoning...if an American is hiding in Yemen and plotting to blow up a plane maybe we can blow him up first, but way to wide open to avoid abuse. I'm a big Obama fan but I'm pissed that he's running this free and loose with this stuff. Hopefully it's on his to-do list and nothing nasty will become of it before he's done.


Not crazy reasoning? What is this? Israel? That's pretty fucking crazy reasoning. Apologist jingoism is unbecoming. What happened to due process? All because the Criminal suddenly became an enemy of the state?

I point you to a Movie, The Unthinkable. It's just a movie, of course, but it's the thought that it invokes. Just how far are you prepared to go?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unthinkable

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

>> ^alizarin:

Obama's renditions are different than Bush's in that :
Bush stuck people in Guantanamo for years with no end in sight or sent them to foreign countries to be tortured. Obama decried that.
Obama wants to maintain the ability to do renditions to places like Bagram only if it's
- for short periods of time (not endlessly imprisoning people without a trial)
- not putting them places where it's reasonable to expect they will be tortured
- not doing anything that's against domestic laws, international obligations, US policy, or humane treatment.
- plus he did effectively close Guantanamo imprisonment
- info
Still way too lacking in checks-and-balances protection from abuse for my tastes but you could make a good argument that he's not being hypocritical.


Utterly disgusting. Secret abductions? How does that not violate some tenant of our society? Due, fucking, process. How about some Equality Before the Law? Treat terrorists for what they are, criminals.

You didn't read my post and you're setting me up as a straw man to argue against.

Obama's language in his executive orders that this is all about talk about respecting "international obligations, domestic laws, and humane treatment". So, I gather that means the only way rendition/abduction/arrest is going to be legit is if there's no reasonable government in place to do an extradition from like say a dude in Somalia plotting to blow up the French Club's trip to Paris. The language also specifies that it would be temporary confinement before due process and never to someplace where they could be tortured. The whole thing is ripe for nasty abuse but as I understand it they're trying to set up a legal framework that does not violate tenants of our society... it is a huge fucking legal mess but I don't see evidence that it's trying to do the stuff you're saying.
>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^alizarin:
Obama's renditions are different than Bush's in that :
Bush stuck people in Guantanamo for years with no end in sight or sent them to foreign countries to be tortured. Obama decried that.
Obama wants to maintain the ability to do renditions to places like Bagram only if it's
- for short periods of time (not endlessly imprisoning people without a trial)
- not putting them places where it's reasonable to expect they will be tortured
- not doing anything that's against domestic laws, international obligations, US policy, or humane treatment.
- plus he did effectively close Guantanamo imprisonment
- info
Still way too lacking in checks-and-balances protection from abuse for my tastes but you could make a good argument that he's not being hypocritical.

Utterly disgusting. Secret abductions? How does that not violate some tenant of our society? Due, fucking, process. How about some Equality Before the Law? Treat terrorists for what they are, criminals.

Absolute power and all that.

And for the repubs coming in to gloat, you guys got so much to be proud of?

While the two primary packs of wankers do their best to be as much like each other as possible, short sighted members of the public pick sides as if it mattered worth a shit... Any wonder why people are so apathetic about politicians...