What's your point then? The media either thinks Obama is god or the antichrist, depending on whether you've flipped to MSNBC or Fox. It doesn't affect reality.
Printable View
What's your point then? The media either thinks Obama is god or the antichrist, depending on whether you've flipped to MSNBC or Fox. It doesn't affect reality.
I thought the above posts were pretty clear on what my point was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Here, skim this study and see if anything jumps out at you. I really don't see where anyone but the most rabid Obama fanboy (which apparently includes much of the press) would think that Obama has gotten the same level of critical coverage that past presidents have had- particularly Bush, but even Clinton did not receive the level a favoritism that Obama seems to be enjoying now if Pew is to be believed.
I don't expect the media to collectively sling mud a Obama, but it sure would be nice if his agenda was viewed with a more critical eye and perhaps even a little bit of skepticism. When I look at headlines, half the stories mentioning the president read more like fawning celebrity worship instead of political reporting- see my food article above.
@Xiahou
Again, why should this be in a thread about the Obama Administration and not in a thread about news organizations and journalism? Talk about his policies, not about the media bending over for him please.
Obama's economic idiocy continues:
Government interference will just result in less efficiency, and a distortion of incentives.Quote:
US government seeks to rein in executive pay
Democrats want to push administration on US corporate pay strategies
* Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is taking a half-step toward taming U.S. executive pay. Some lawmakers prefer a fuller stride.
Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee said Thursday the administration's efforts to hector the private sector into reining in executive pay might not go far enough.
The administration contends that excessive compensation contributed to the U.S. financial crisis, but rejects direct intervention in corporate pay decisions.
Instead, the administration plans to seek legislation that would try to rein in compensation at publicly traded companies through nonbinding shareholder votes and less management influence on pay decisions.
Oh, and the American Medical Association, America's largest physician group, opposes any public insurance plan, like Obama's:
I guess the question is - will they listen? I doubt it.Quote:
Doctors’ Group Opposes Public Insurance Plan
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: June 10, 2009
WASHINGTON — As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.
The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors’ group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America’s largest physician organization.
While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.” It is now reacting, for the first time, to specific legislative proposals being drafted by Congress.
CR
Interesting on the AMA, I did little reading, did not know that their membership had dropped so dramatically. Anyway, based on what I'm reading today, they're in more of a "conditional" opposition, depending on what is in the plan. Makes sense. I haven't seen the details, has anyone?
AMA's leaders agree that the nation's health system is sick. But the group has long opposed government intrusion into health care and believes reform can be achieved by revamping private health insurance plans.
Dr. Nancy Nielsen, AMA's president, says the group wants details on Obama's proposal for a public health insurance plan to compete with private plans.
In a written statement Thursday, she said the AMA "opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates."
But, she added, the AMA "is willing to consider other variations of a public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress."
In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, Nielsen sounded more conciliatory than combative. She said AMA shares Obama's concern "that we need to have comprehensive health care reform" that offers everyone affordable, high-quality health insurance.
AMA donates more to Republicans - they aren't in this for their patients. They are in this for themselves.
Holy cow- they donate more to the Republicans??? Then clearly, they are all scumbags- each and every one of them. Now, had they donated more to the Democrats, they'd be saints.....Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Some more of the objective insight that I've come to expect from Nate.
Who is Nate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Nate Silver, the unexpected star of the last election. He's a baseball statistical analyst who took his sports-stats techniques and applied them to politics, with more accurate results than any other public pollster. He's also well-liked by Dems and lefties at the moment, as the bearer of good tidings. From Wikipedia:
Silver's final 2008 presidential election forecast accurately predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia (missing only the prediction for Indiana). As his model predicted, the races in Missouri and North Carolina were particularly close. He also correctly predicted the winners of every U.S. Senate race that has been resolved.
We'll see if he's as well-liked when the news is bad for the Dems.
Here's his political polling/statistical analysis site.
Oh thats right, he is the fivethirtyeight.com guy. I checked that website frequently during the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I knew you would agree with me Xiahou :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
No matter how you feel about Obama, this is pretty cool: The Mother of All Absence Notes
John Corpus let his 10-year-old daughter, Kennedy, skip her last day of fourth grade at Aldo Leopold Community School to attend a packed town hall meeting where she could see the president of the United States up close. [...]
First, President Obama called on Corpus to ask a question about his plans for health care reform. As he posed his query, he let drop that his daughter was skipping school to see the president.
Does she need a note? Obama asked.
Playing along, Corpus said he would take Obama up on the offer. To his surprise, Obama was serious.
"What's her name," Obama asked, reaching in his suit pocket for a pen. When Corpus answered "John," Obama repeated: "Her name?"
"Kennedy," Corpus replied.
"That's a cool name," Obama said, as he started to compose the missive.
"To Kennedy's teacher," read the note, written in black ink over the president's distinctive signature. "Please excuse Kennedy's absence.... she's with me."
*rollseyes*Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
No, I think a better response is sustained laughter.
Oh noes! $30k! Over ten years, so about $3k a year. Yup, that's pretty massive.Quote:
The leading Senate-side recipient of its campaign contributions since 1998 has been John Ensign of Nevada, to whom the AMA has given $30,000.
Really though, the idea that simply because they donate more to republicans they are in this for themselves is absurd. And I mean absurd. What, besides partisanship, could cause you to state that the AMA is in it for themselves instead of simply supporting candidates they believe will do the best for health care? Maybe, as doctors, they have an insight into the fact that public health care isn't good?
If you want partisanship in organizations, look to Washington's teacher's union, which donates above 90% (IIRC) to democrats.
Yes indeed.Quote:
No matter how you feel about Obama, this is pretty cool:
CR
The note:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
https://jimcee.homestead.com/vlcsnap-1062214.jpg
I wonder how long he had to practice that signature? :)
Nope. Doctors will do better out of private healthcare because they earn more per patient. It's that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
There's talk of eliminating 'per-patient' compensation, and making payment 'outcome based'. This, the doc's don't like much.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
And gets the actuarial guys more involved, figuring the odds that x treatment will have y outcome. The fear is: if the oddsmakers decide that the odds are not good enough, = denial of compensation/funding for that treatment.
Those damn doctors sitting on their piles of gold and many beautiful women! How dare those capitalist pigs earn a living for themselves on the illnesses of the workers! We must crush them comrade!Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Grist for a different thread, I suppose, and we'll probably have one up once the new healthcare proposal gets made public.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
That said ...
I don't know a single medical professional who's happy with the way things are now. One of the best doctors I knew in NYC stopped taking health insurance entirely, since he couldn't deal with the forms, the bureaucracy and the aggravation. You paid him cash, and you dealt with the insurance trolls.
Important fact: As the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed, precious little of that money has made it to doctors and nurses. Their incomes have remained relatively flat, certainly not advancing at 14%-20% per year like our healthcare costs.
So with nationalization, you lessen their pay and the incentive to become a doctor. Great plan. And if the NHS is any guide, the red tape will become worse. If I recall the one NHS doc here hates it.Quote:
Nope. Doctors will do better out of private healthcare because they earn more per patient. It's that simple.
My Uncle-in-law joined the army as a doctor because he couldn't pay rising malpractice insurance (which might have been above $100k a year, I don't remember).Quote:
One of the best doctors I knew in NYC stopped taking health insurance entirely, since he couldn't deal with the forms, the bureaucracy and the aggravation.
Anyways, more hospitals and medical peoples are opposing Obama: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090614/D98Q5L4O0.html
And an opinion article by someone at Safeway and the plan they used to keep employee healthcare costs steady for the last four years (since the plan was implemented):Quote:
The president suggests trimming federal payments to hospitals by about $200 billion over the next 10 years, saying greater efficiencies and broader insurance coverage will justify the change. Hospitals, especially those with many poor patients, say the proposed cuts are unfair and will harm the sick and elderly.
...
Obama wants to reduce government payments for such services. He said the devices are used so frequently and efficiently that providers can spread their costs over many patients, requiring less government reimbursement.
The Access to Medical Imaging Coalition, a trade group, disagreed. It said the president's plan would "impair access to diagnostic imaging services and result in patients' delaying or forgoing life- and cost-savings imaging procedures." The group said Obama's efficiency estimates were based on a flawed survey.
Now, IIRC, Obama doesn't want insurers to be able to charge people with unhealthy habits more. Apparently it's unfair to the unhealthy. Who cares about the healthy - those who stay fit - or about the practical implications (people will have less incentive to stay fit). :wall:Quote:
Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.
As much as we would like to take credit for being a health-care innovator, Safeway has done nothing more than borrow from the well-tested automobile insurance model. For decades, driving behavior has been correlated with accident risk and has therefore translated into premium differences among drivers. Stated somewhat differently, the auto-insurance industry has long recognized the role of personal responsibility. As a result, bad behaviors (like speeding, tickets for failure to follow the rules of the road, and frequency of accidents) are considered when establishing insurance premiums. Bad driver premiums are not subsidized by the good driver premiums.
As with most employers, Safeway's employees pay a portion of their own health care through premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The big difference between Safeway and most employers is that we have pronounced differences in premiums that reflect each covered member's behaviors. Our plan utilizes a provision in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that permits employers to differentiate premiums based on behaviors. Currently we are focused on tobacco usage, healthy weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.
Safeway's Healthy Measures program is completely voluntary and currently covers 74% of the insured nonunion work force. Employees are tested for the four measures cited above and receive premium discounts off a "base level" premium for each test they pass. Data is collected by outside parties and not shared with company management. If they pass all four tests, annual premiums are reduced $780 for individuals and $1,560 for families. Should they fail any or all tests, they can be tested again in 12 months. If they pass or have made appropriate progress on something like obesity, the company provides a refund equal to the premium differences established at the beginning of the plan year.
Also, Obama is choosing some ambassadorships based on who gave him the most money in the campaign: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090612/D98OTD380.html
CRQuote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Thursday tapped four big Democratic Party donors for plum ambassadorships in Europe and Latin America while naming six career diplomats to posts in Africa, the Mideast and the Pacific.
More of Obama's cunning diplomacy AKA angering allies:
America's 'Bermuda solution' angers Britain
Is this really the improved diplomacy Obama was supposed to bring about?Quote:
America's 'Bermuda solution' angers Britain
Decision to send Guantanamo inmates to British colony sours 'special relationship'
By Kim Sengupta
Senior aides to President Barack Obama accompanied four Uighur prisoners as they were flown from Guantanamo Bay to the British colony of Bermuda, without the UK being informed, it was revealed yesterday.
In an escalating diplomatic row over the transfer of the former terrorist suspects, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the transfer with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in what was said to be an uneasy conversation. Privately Whitehall officials accused America of treating Britain, with whom it is supposed to have a "special relationship", with barely disguised contempt.
One senior official said: "The Americans were fully aware of the foreign-policy understanding we have with Bermuda and they deliberately chose to ignore it. This is not the kind of behaviour one expects from an ally."
CR
On the domestic front: has anyone found yet any simple explanation of what kind of universal health care plan is being proposed/crafted? Or is it all hopelessly complicated? I keep hearing huge sums of money being thrown about (trillions), and the argument seems to be over just how many trillions it's gonna cost.
But what is being bought, exactly? From whom, and for whom?
For me personally currently, I pay about $35 per week (matched dollar-for-dollar by my employer) so that if I get in a car wreck and lose my legs (and car), I don't also lose my job, my house, and my pension to pay for fixing me up. It doesn't cover eyeglasses or dental - I pay for that out of pocket, as needed.
Is what is being discussed to provide everybody with this kind of coverage, working or not, or something more? Or less?
Kukri, I don't believe any details or final proposals have been made public. Should be coming soon, though.
-edit-
Nice to see the major insurers digging holes, piling the dirt up neatly by the side, and placing convenient stone markers at the top. I mean, really, what the **** were they thinking?
Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive. [...] An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.
It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses. [...]
But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.
Experts said it could undermine the industry's efforts to influence healthcare-overhaul plans working their way toward the White House.
"Talk about tone deaf," said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive who now counsels companies as a consultant.
Democratic strategist Paul Begala said the hearing could hurt the industry's efforts to position itself in the debate.
"The industry has tried very hard in this current effort not to be the bad guy, not to wear the black hat," Begala said. "The trouble is all that hard work and goodwill is at risk if in fact they are pursuing" such practices.
Current polling:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...are0617091.jpg
Barack Obama swatting a fly gets a video and an article in the BBC. Unbelievable. :dizzy2:
That's a scandal that we haven't heard much about. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Here's a pretty lengthy writeup on the saga from Jake Tapper.
From what I get, an Inspector General finds that hundreds of thousands of dollars from Americorps were misused by St. HOPE Academy and by Obama ally Kevin Johnson personally. The IG announced that he was referring Johnson and the Academy for criminal charges and both would be ineligible to receive any federal funds until the investigation concludes. The acting Attorney General announced that he reached a settlement that involved the return of about half of the money, including $70k+ from Johnson personally. They were also to admit that they inadequately tracked the federal funds and Johnson agreed to take online courses. The settlement cleared Johnson, as mayor of Sacramento, to receive stimulus funding.
The Inspector General in question claimed he was never informed of the proposed settlement and disagreed vehemently with it. Soon after, the White House fired the IG. That alone might be enough to raise eyebrows, but the grounds of the dismissal are also suspect.Ironically, Obama co-sponsored this legislation. The administration has placed the IG on a 30days paid suspension prior to his firing. But, does that meet the legal requirements? By my reading of the above quote, it may not. If it's 30 days review before removal or transfer, a paid suspension sounds a lot like "removal or transfer".Quote:
Grassley said Walpin needed to be given 30-days notice, which he said is required by the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act that President Bush signed into law and then-Sen. Obama co-sponsored.
Specifically, Section 3 of the law requires that, “the president shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.”
Interesting indeed.
No, this is unbelievable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
PETA is so cute. ~:pat:
To be honest I don't crush flies for the same reason, unless I am particularly annoyed for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Mosquitoes on the other hand...
PETA, seeing that it's in a hole, decides to dig furiously.
As we all know, human beings often don’t think before they act. We don’t condemn President Obama for acting on instinct. When the media began contacting us in droves for a statement, we obliged, simply by saying that the president isn’t the Buddha and shouldn’t be expected to do everything right—if not for that, we would not have brought it up. It’s the media who are making a big deal about the fly swat—not PETA. However, we took the opportunity, when asked, to point out that we do offer lots of ways in which to control insects of all kinds without harming them. There is even a chapter in PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk’s book, Making Kind Choices, about how to rid your home of “uninvited guests.”
We support compassion for all animals, even the most curious, smallest, and least sympathetic animals. We hope that everyone will take inspiration from Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who included insects in his realm of compassion and would stop to move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth.
I'm so old that I remember when PETA was a respectable organization.
I don't see what thats wrong with what PETA did, it doesn't seem they went out of thier way to condem him for swatting a fly. They're just stating that they would prefer people didn't kill insects so needlessly.. which seems fair to me.
What?! I've heard such fantastic legends before, but surely it cannot have ever been so!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Also on that site is this game: http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/06/18/o...rds-from-peta/
Which features you directing your minions to club baby seals, and then the hippie elves that protect them, to death.
CR
So, 106 Billion Bucks for 90 days of war-fighting, AND some domestic programs as well, all off-budget, ala the last administration.
I'm old enough to remember LBJ's "guns 'n butter" duel-funding plan for the war on Viet Nam AND the war on poverty. It worked for awhile, but neither achieved its stated goal. Maybe history doesn't always repeat itself, but I think we need to tread lightly in mixing FoPo and domestic money.
As a libertarian, i'm against the idea of the government providing health care, as i don't think the government should take care of people, but rather that people should take care of themselves.
However, i'm not afraid of it, and if it works, hey why knock it? I just got done watching Sicko and neither England, nor France have problems with it. The fact that the one woman got an inhaler that would have cost her like $120 for $.05 in CUBA of all places was ASTONISHING, to say the least.
Moore's movie? That's propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus
From wikipedia:
CRQuote:
MTV's Kurt Loder criticized the film as presenting cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews, and unsubstantiated assertions.[31] While admitting that the U.S. health care system needs reform, Loder criticized Moore’s advocacy of government control, arguing that many services controlled by the government are not considered efficient by the American public. Loder points to a 2005 documentary, Dead Meat, by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg, which documents long waiting lists for care in Canada. Loder points to calls for reform in Britain and France due to the same rationing.[32]
Well, it's true that Cuba has quality health care.
It's so good in fact that many foreign countries gladly rent doctors and medical personel from Cuba, and because Cuba direly needs money to pay for (among other things) their elaborate health care system, they gladly accept :dizzy2:
A fairer comparison is looking at what Switzerland pays and the service they receive.
McKinsey has done some good work on comparing health services. As the UK spends about 9% and the USA about 17%GDP, it should be a hell of a lot better.
~:smoking:
A combination of two of the world's greatest sources :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
*looks at CA's source in the Honduras thread*Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Anyways, You know Mr. transparency and everything? Apparently the new White House web site is harder to find actual info on than Bush's, and is more oriented towards showing off flattering pictures of Obama.
CRQuote:
Information is harder to find on the Obama Web site than it was on the site created and run by the Bush administration, according to Web site experts.
"It doesn't seem to be quite in line with the notion of the pillars of government 2.0 being openness and transparency. It seems just the opposite," said Mark Drapeau, a columnist for Federal Computer Week who writes frequently on the ways that new technologies can be used by the government.
Mr. Drapeau and others said this might be a short-term trend, as the administration has begun a long-term effort to use new technologies to open up the government that could have a big impact on the way the public interacts with the federal bureaucracy and keeps track of its actions.
The biggest difference is that the Bush Web site archived all its information by year, month and day, with a sidebar menu that allowed a user to view virtually all the information from, for example, a day in 2002 -- speech transcripts along with video and audio of the speech, press releases, official statements, nominations, letters to Congress, executive orders -- with three clicks of the mouse.
The same information on the Obama site, however, is spread across various parts of the Web site. The longer ago something happened, the harder it is to find.
"It's lots of PR and not a lot of data," said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, who called the site "brochureware."
:laugh4: I just went with what a mate linked me to. Couldn't be bothered to dig through anything else. All of the MSM just say the exact same thing and are incredibly short on details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Moore lies and implies through his teeth. Ever since laughing through half of Bowling for Columbine I never trusted a word the man said again.
Things get awkward at a press briefing when Gibbs is questioned about Obama's use of pre-packaged "townhall" meetings.
Gibbs is a piece of work, idn't 'e? Kudo's to the off-screen AP guy, who Gibbs is desperately trying to get to, to avoid more Helen exposure: "I think I'll wait until Helen is done". :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Six months. Apparently the bloom is off the rose. They got him elected, and are now wondering about the "news" being handed to them. This failure to adequately kowtow to the media (IMO) is a tactical admin error. The admin needs the continued support of television media for at least the rest of this year. After that, the wheels will already be rolling on the programs, and the press can be sidelined as 'nattering nabobs of negativity', as all admins in the past have.
I predict Gibbs gets promoted out of the position. By Labor Day. And by this time next year, journalists, if there are any left in the country, will begin looking at details, instead of entertainment value. Finally.
A sad display of communication from the White House:
Sheesh.Quote:
Seven months after she poured out her heartbreak in a wrenching letter to then President-elect Obama, the mother of murdered Brooklyn Marine Sgt. Jan Pawel Pietrzak finally got a response - a form letter.
"Thank you for contacting President Obama," the note to Henryka Pietrzak-Varga begins. "We hope the issue you brought to the President's attention has been resolved."
...
In her November 2008 letter to Obama, Pietrzak-Varga opened with the words: "Dear President-elect Barack Obama, they killed my son."
Pietrzak-Varga then asked for help in getting to the bottom of the "bestial" murders.
"Death at war at the hands of an enemy is, for a soldier, a patriotic honor," she wrote in Polish. "The death of a soldier in his country and at the hands of his own soldiers ... is a source of endless suffering for his family."
Pietrzak-Varga went on to write that "My son's wife was raped in a bestial way, most likely as my son looked on helplessly."
"Why did this happen? What motivated them? What was it about my son and daughter-in-law that inspired such hatred and loathing?"
In his five-paragraph reply, Kelleher apologized for the delay in getting back to her and urged the Brooklyn mom to send an "updated description of your issue" if "you still need help with a Federal agency."
Kelleher also provided a Web address.
CR
There's no part of this I don't like. :dizzy2:
Quote:
The Obama administration is looking at creating a courtroom-within-a-prison complex in the U.S. to house suspected terrorists, combining military and civilian detention facilities at a single maximum-security prison.
So, on one hand, it makes an even more convoluted mess out of the detainee situation by putting it under the bureaucratic supervision of no less than three cabinet departments, yet at the same time, nothing is changing from the detainee perspective. There's still an "undetermined" number that will be held indefinitely without charge, others will be charged by military tribunal, and others still will be sent to civilian courts. As you may recall, that's not a whole lot different than what was happening in Gitmo. But hey, he promised to close the detention facility in Gitmo, so instead, we can keep them.... in Michigan. :inquisitive:Quote:
The facility would operate as a hybrid prison system jointly operated by the Justice Department, the military and the Department of Homeland Security.
The administration's plan, according to three government officials, calls for:
_Moving all the Guantanamo detainees to a single U.S. prison. The Justice Department has identified between 60 and 80 who could be prosecuted, either in military or federal criminal courts. The Pentagon would oversee the detainees who would face trial in military tribunals. The Bureau of Prisons, an arm of the Justice Department, would manage defendants in federal courts.
_Building a court facility within the prison site where military or criminal defendants would be tried. Doing so would create a single venue for almost all the criminal defendants, ending the need to transport them elsewhere in the U.S. for trial.
_Providing long-term holding cells for a small but still undetermined number of detainees who will not face trial because intelligence and counterterror officials conclude they are too dangerous to risk being freed.
_Building immigration detention cells for detainees ordered released by courts but still behind bars because countries are unwilling to take them.
Take him to... DetroitQuote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
So your mad that Obama can't read every letter sent to him, even ones in polish?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
File this under 'slightly creepy'.There's just something inherently wrong about the White House asking people to turn in anyone spreading "disinformation"...:sweatdrop:Quote:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
Nice find.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Shocking, I know, but extraordinary renditions are continuing under the Obama Administration.Quote:
The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday.
Human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying that continuing the practice, known as rendition, would still allow the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture. They said that promises from other countries of humane treatment, called “diplomatic assurances,” were no protection against abuse.
I would say that the inherently wrong thing is the disinformation in the first place....wouldn´t you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
it is there constitutional right to spread whatever they want to. As long as it does not directly harm anyone.Quote:
I would say that the inherently wrong thing is the disinformation in the first place....wouldn´t you say?
From the McClatchy: Pentagon worried about Obama's commitment to Afghanistan
After all the talk on the campaign trail of Iraq being the wrong war and Afghanistan being the right one, it looks like there are some early signs that the administration is already beginning to waver....Quote:
"I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier," a senior Pentagon official said. "We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war."
Monday's assessment initially was to include troop recommendations, but political concerns prompted White House and Pentagon officials to agree that those recommendations would come later, advisers to McChrystal said. Although the White House took a hands-off approach toward Afghanistan earlier this summer, Pentagon officials said they're now getting more questions about how many troops might be needed and for how long.
Some White House officials said the administration feels it was pressured to send the additional 17,500 combat troops and 4,000 trainers earlier this year, before the administration was comfortable with its plan for Afghanistan , because of the country's election in August.
The afghanistan thing seemed like something he touted so he could criticize the iraq war without looking like a pacifist.
Good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Also - see Sasaki.
He could have had someone translate it. If you're pouring out that much money in stimulus you can probably afford it (it's a mini-stimulus in itself anyway). And he has time for one letter, one single letter, from the mother of one of the soldiers of whom he is in command. This is especially disgusting after the gruesome details of what happened to the couple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Winter
I'd be insulted if I were a Marine.
Yeah, I'd agree. But then again, I thought Obama spent most of the campaign trying to (and succeeding) convince voters that he was something he was not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
A politician pretending to be something he is not! Say it is not so. Does, does that mean Clinton did get it on with the pretty little thing in the blue dress :drama2:
I do actually agree with you... the thing with all sales and marketing is that at some point you have to deliver what you promise or expect a real dip in your brand.
I think the blame rides in the bureaucracy reading the mail. Unless if they already had orders to look for the name there's no way you can expect special treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Also the event in question happened in Bush's reign.
This administration is becoming a nightmare rather quickly. I honestly didn't think Democrats had the balls to incinerate our country.
Can anyone honestly say that the new "pledge to serve our president" video doesn't make your skin crawl?
Had to Google that one. Taking a look, it's rather silly. A bunch of celebs pledging "allegiance to the funk," etc. Ridiculous? Certainly. Making my skin crawl? Only to the usual extent when Ashton and Demi think that their opinions matter to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I note that this video dates to January 2009. Are you referring to something newer?
I look in to this thread from time to time to catch the latest Obama gossip, but it disappoints me every time. This month there appears to be something about a letter that's gone wrong. And some anonymous source in the Pentagon saying that Obama is not showing the commitment to the Afghan war that some anonymous source in the Pentagon expects. And .. well that's it, really.
Big deal. :coffeenews:
Well, I hear he drinks the blood of children to stay young and vibrant... :yes:
In reality, there just isn't that much news right now. He's too smart and media-savvy to pull real boneheaded moves in public like Bush did. Congress has been out of session. And apart from outlandish tales told be the righter side of the media, the press seems to be giving him a pass for now. I'm thinking that this will end this winter, once his first year goes by they will start being more critical. At this point, his administration earns a big "Meh". Nothing too bad, but nothing too good either.
The action is in healthcare. Everything's simply spend on discussing that. Both in the Backroom and in RL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
The good news is that the Republicans don't have anything better than some pimped and sensationalized non-stories to create outrage over Obama with.
Meanwhile, Obama occupies himself with settling dramatised and sensationalized liberal non-stories with beer diplomacy in the White House Garden.
All of which means he is free to throw his weight where it's needed, in healthcare. I even suspect Obama of being politically savvy enough to deliberately avoid controversy for the time being.
He might be referring to this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/02...t-left-behind/
I don't know Louis. That teflon is peeling in layers now. I don't think anybody in the Backroom would confuse me with an Obama supporter, and even I feel bad for the guy over this. :embarassed:
This is about as low as it gets. The guy tries to talk to kids about working hard, setting goals for themselves and staying in school... and we get... comparisons to North Korea. :no:
Partisanship, at the expense of statesmanship.... I'll grant you Obama has been a bit wounded lately, but you all mark my words, the Republicans seriously overplayed their hand this time and its going to boomerang on them. Yes, the Democrats were petty in 1991, and gave H.W. Bush grief. This was the Republicans' chance to show that they are better than that.....
... or not, as the case may be. What the hell has happened to us? :shame:
Yeah Don I heard this on talk radio this morning while running errands. This is partisanship run amok and the lies seem to get more outrageous as we go. It's like the GOP is playing to the extreme fringe and will say or do anything. I agree with you that this will boomerang on the Republicans. I mean come on, anyone who is willing to stop a minute and think with their brain can't possibly believe this stuff.
I would say that Silly Season has happened to you..Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
...but then, these are not supposed to last for decades. So: sheesh! Some people really need to spend some time in Libya, that they can learn to tell the difference between that sort of place and America.
Good grief. He's the president, and it is the start of the new school season?
I wonder - where does partisanship end and divisive attacks on America's most fundamental institutions begin?
In another case of what was surely top notch vetting, Obama had appointed Van Jones as his Green Jobs Advisor. Recently, it came to light that among many things, he is a 9/11 Truther. (Signatory #46)
He's also described himself as a Communist and revolutionary, and supporter of Mumia, the Black Panther who murderd a Philadelphia Police Officer. Basically, the guy is about as far out on the kook left fringe as you can get.
You can listen to him talk about how white polluters steer poison into black communities, here. Ever wonder how people get the idea that environmentalists are just stealth communists? :inquisitive:
In the end, the consensus seems to be that it's the 9/11 Truther label that will do him in, with most predicting he'll be out by Monday. Anyone want to make their own prediction?
Well, depends. He might be a loon on several matters, but if he's genuinely qualified in the field of renewable/'green' energy, then I see no reason to dismiss him so long as he keeps his trap shut except for what he's being paid to do.
The simplest reason is that politically, he is going to be a huge liability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
If he has such unusual (and actually quite offensive) views on the events of 9-11, he is hardly likely to have much credibility on global warming. The impacts and causes of the latter are subject to some controversy, and having someone of such sensibilities trying to further an environmental agenda is just grist to the mill of those who would derail the president's policies.
I've got a question for all of you Obama voters. Do any of you think he is doing any semblance of a good job so far?
I clearly didn't vote for him and I'm not upset about his foreign policy at all - but on the domestic front I had no idea that he would be this close to epic failure and ineptitude this quickly. I honestly expected a more even keel from the guy I didn't vote for.
Would it be possible for you to enumerate the domestic policies that you think are close to "epic fail"? Particularly those in his manifesto that the majority voted for, rather than just those you disagreed with on principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
The most obvious is Health Care reform, the goal is becomign more and mroe elusive. Most Americans recognize the need for reform, but if this is negotiating it, he is an aweful negotiator. His goal is gettign further and further away from him because of bad tactics and worse strategy.
Another is general racial harmonization. I at least expected that he wouldn't aggravate situations.
Additionally - faith in the administration to resolve problems effectively. The polls show that his number one asset; his personality - is not playing well. He is not communicating a coherent or staid vision that will likely be implemented. Weak moral and political rationalization seems to characterize his administration, but it seems to be infuriating the center, which is unexpected. His words seem hollow and without weight. Do you disagree?
I agree with his position on Israel - I havn't agreed with a U.S. President on that in a while and his moderate position on S America is nice as well; It clips the wings of Chavez to an extent, making him look even more absurd.
There are policies that I agree with him on, but unity within the nation is a serious failing - without even a semblance of unifying the center to the various special interests that you represent.
Would any of this have to do with outlandish claims such as "death panels" that keep getting thrown out by the RNC, in blatant attempts to do nothing but stop any reform, regardless of what is in it? Bearing in mind, the Prez is not responsible for legislation anyways. Surely someone as concerned with checks and balances would recognize that it is congress' failing for not settling on adequate legislation? Obama can be a cheerleader or bully, but nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I'm assuming you were referring to the situation with the Harvard professor? He was entirely correct in in assessing that the officers behaved poorly. Further, the situations seems fairly resolved and out of the news. Blew by in a week or two, and haven't heard from it since. Not exactly a thunderstorm of activity, especially considering it was the media who felt it was so important despite that it was a brief statement about at the very end of a q&a about healthcare.Quote:
Another is general racial harmonization. I at least expected that he wouldn't aggravate situations.
What center? I am hearing of no center. I hear of people screaming "don't socialize my medicare!" and "Those objectors are acting like nazis!" I hear very few in the center, because both republican and democrat are making so bizarre and false claims about the other that everything else is drowned out in our never ending, real life Jerry Springer episode.Quote:
Additionally - faith in the administration to resolve problems effectively. The polls show that his number one asset; his personality - is not playing well. He is not communicating a coherent or staid vision that will likely be implemented. Weak moral and political rationalization seems to characterize his administration, but it seems to be infuriating the center, which is unexpected. His words seem hollow and without weight. Do you disagree?
As for his communication, he sure seems to be making a pretty strong effort to get his own message out there, whether via email, facebook, etc.... You are correct, however, that rationalization seems not oft-well communicated in these attempts.
Again, I do not see how you can blame him for the unity issue- the RNC is being stunningly obstinate. Obama greets the possibility of cutting medicare expenses for the budget hawks, and Steel rejects the notion and even goes to the effort to "warn seniors" of the possibility. So even when Obama does try to throw out ideas for Republicans to work with, they're spitting back in his face anyways. I fail to see how he's responsible for that.Quote:
I agree with his position on Israel - I havn't agreed with a U.S. President on that in a while and his moderate position on S America is nice as well; It clips the wings of Chavez to an extent, making him look even more absurd.
There are policies that I agree with him on, but unity within the nation is a serious failing - without even a semblance of unifying the center to the various special interests that you represent.
So you blame the Republicans for his failures to date? Or are you saying that there have been no failures?
How on earth do you interpret my previous statements like that? I explained what I interpreted point by point, the least you could do is give the courtesy of doing likewise instead of trying to throw me into a corner. I think I've explained my position adequately on your claims, and if you aren't willing to engage in constructive debate, then I am done.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Blaming Republicans instead. I'm sure he'll take the credit if it happensQuote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
You are saying that the president was right to immediately assume that the officers had behaved poorly. I don't agree; that the officers behaved poorly or that he should have jumped to that conclusion as an auto trigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
You are claiming that there is no center.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
Thanks. Fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
Blaming Republicans instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
Clearly you aren't communicating your message clearly to the people of the backroom. Tuff is not at fault for ignoring the point, it's all on you :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Finally, somebody gets it.
Somewhat. I was blaming both republicans and congress as a whole, which is of course controlled by democrats. To say I was blaming Republicans only is selective reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Immediately assume? You act as though there were not accounts of it. There was fault on both sides of the incident(the professor and the officers), but frankly, that a man can be held up while getting into his own home is frankly absurd. I would probably be angry myself if such an incident happened.Quote:
You are saying that the president was right to immediately assume that the officers had behaved poorly. I don't agree; that the officers behaved poorly or that he should have jumped to that conclusion as an auto trigger.
Hardly. I'm pointing out that nobody can hear the center due to the left/right shout match. There is a distinct difference between the two.Quote:
You are claiming that there is no center.
On the instance of your accusation of a lack of unity, yes. The RNC is being quite uncooperative, even when pro-traditional republican pillars of political philosophy are handed out. You did not counter this.Quote:
Blaming Republicans instead.
If I was unclear, then Tuff should have queried my point in a manner that wasn't aggressive, absurd, and, quite honestly, irritating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Don't mind Sasaki Kojiro, Shinseikhaan. He doesn't participate in conversations much, but he's a real firecracker when it comes to declaring who is and is not communicating adequately. He operates exclusively on the meta-conversational level. It's all terribly postmodern.
Yes, I was agreeing with you. In this case, you are as obama, trying to have an open discussion with people of the backroom, and Tuff is as the RNC, deliberately avoiding such discussion and then blaming you for not having one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan