President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[ScarabGator]

more of the same shit.

[7 Wishes]

Once again, LiePaster, way to distort the truth...a complete and outright lie on your part, again.

http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL33889/

Consider that, in 2007, the White House and DoJ were under fire because they interfered with the independence of that office in a way that's unprecedented. In the previous quarter-century, according to the Congressional Research Service, no more than five and perhaps only two U.S. attorneys, out of 486 appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate, have been similarly forced out.

Right after that, that gun-slingin' semi-illiterate former coke head fired eight attorneys with no reason. Clinton fired ZERO. So fuck off.

[7 Wishes]

You idiot.

Those attorneys are fired all the time, and have been for two centuries. What was unprecedented was them being fired for ideaological, as opposed to performance, reasons. Again, before Bush, that had happened five times in the 25 years prior to 2007 (and of course Reagan fired another dozen for idealogical reasons in the 80's as well). That INCLUDES the Clinton Administration, dubmass.

Get a clue, dude. You're really vacuous.

And medaresearch.org? Perhaps the most biased, least informed, and most fact-challenged "think group" in the country. Way to find an unbiased source again, Murdoch.

[RossValoryRocks]

Perhaps the most biased, least informed, and most fact-challenged "think group" in the country. Way to find an unbiased source again, Murdoch.

Tsk Tsk...People who live in glass houses and all that...considering the sources YOU cite at times...

[7 Wishes]

Except the sources I have been using recently have all been culled from government websites and the like, not some off-the-chart far-right wag-the-dog organization with an agenda and an attitude problem.

[artist4perry]

Dead serious donna. I will try to be civil and not run hot.

Nice....very nice!

Deano is a sweet heart...............

Clinton sucks eggs...............

Democrats eat turds.................

Lefties are Communists.......................










Still minding your temper sweetie? Just kidding by the way!

I was just telling redhead that I was going to ease up on her in particular. I still get rather riled up. And your superlatives describing the Democrats and Clinton are laughable.

I only said it because I know you like Clinton and the Democrats..................again I was saying those things only in jest. Bottom line no party is without flaws. That is the way I see it. Just joking with you on the other things. I understand your passion for what you believe. And I listen to what you have to say as a said before. It helps me have a healthy understanding of my own oppinions.

Your alright as far as I am concerned Deano..........a little rough around the edges, but a diamond just the same.

[donnaplease]

dubmass.

[donnaplease]

This the is Barack Obama thread, not the republican or George Bush thread, so it's his actions that are at focus now. Do you think it was okay that he did this, if he did this?

It always strikes me as ironic that so many of those who supported the sham that was the Bush administration want it all forgotten now.

I think there are a lot of things that are a lot more important that the media, the legislature and the voters of this country need to be concentrating on than this issue. I personally don't care if he did it or not. It's petty. It's irrelevant. To hear all of this squawking you'd think he'd fired all of the republican attorneys in the Department of Justice to make sure it runs his way. Oh wait, Bush did get rid of the Democratic Attorneys so I guess that wouldn't be unethical would it?

There is no way that I'm going to miss a chance to tell the Bush supporters how hypocritical their picking apart the trivial slip ups of the Obama administration is when they supported legal and human abominations for eight years.

So if he broke a law in order to change the course of an election, it's ok with you? It's ok to have an unethical president in the white house as long as he has a 'D' behind his name?

As for me, I'm not picking apart anything. All these guys are teflon IMO. I'm just curious as to the rationalization of his actions by some folks, actually on both sides of the aisle.

[7 Wishes]

Really? Obama broke a law? Facts and sources, please.

Amazing that you Republicants tie your panties in a knot over a non-issue and give your "leaders" a free pass on everything.

[donnaplease]

Really? Obama broke a law? Facts and sources, please.

Amazing that you Republicants tie your panties in a knot over a non-issue and give your "leaders" a free pass on everything.

I said 'if', didn't I? You really are a 'dubmass'!

But, since you asked, here's the legal code that most are referencing with regard to this.

http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/600.html

And here's some discussion on both sides of the aisle regarding it, from everyday people like us. I like to read what other people are saying too.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 707AAfaQoj

[7 Wishes]

Right. A code cited only by Hannity, Beck, et al...that really has no application here, and a yahoo message board?

That's the best you can offer?

It's perfectly legal for a prospective or current Administration to offer someone a post with the expressed understanding that that particular candidate would not immediately leave that position (i.e. run for office). So you need to do better than that.

That is NOT evidence of any kind.

And it's amusing how you avoid addressing the issues the Dems on this board bring up, when they are steadfastly presented with irrefutable fact, but continue to peck away at the dung like a cackling chicken.

[ohsherrie]

So if he broke a law in order to change the course of an election, it's ok with you? It's ok to have an unethical president in the white house as long as he has a 'D' behind his name?

As for me, I'm not picking apart anything. All these guys are teflon IMO. I'm just curious as to the rationalization of his actions by some folks, actually on both sides of the aisle.

It was alright with you when Bush was doing it as long as he had the R behind his name. There is very little more ironic than a Bush supporter using the word "unethical" to describe a president.

If, "IF" Obama broke a law or did something unethical it:

- Didn't get thousands of Americans killed like Bush's unethical war in Iraq.

- It didn't out a CIA operative and thereby risk her life.

- It didn't destroy the American economy by giving tax breaks and corporate welfare to corporate cronies for putting millions of American workers out of work.

- It wasn't illegally spying on American citizens, directing US telecom companies to create databases of citizens, and violating the fourth amendment of the US constitution.

- It wasn't as unethical as tampering with and purging all documents submitted to Congress for the investigations into the outing of Valerie Plame and the firing of US Attorneys of all incriminating information and then refusing to testify.

- It wasn't destroying all emails that may have exposed the underhanded Bush/Cheney/Rove machinations.

- It didn't allow unregulated military contractors (Haliburton) to gouge the American taxpayers out of billions of dollars.

- It wasn't tampering with the 2004 election.

No "ethical" Bush supporter has any right to use the word "unethical" about another president.

[gr8dane]

So if he broke a law in order to change the course of an election, it's ok with you? It's ok to have an unethical president in the white house as long as he has a 'D' behind his name?

As for me, I'm not picking apart anything. All these guys are teflon IMO. I'm just curious as to the rationalization of his actions by some folks, actually on both sides of the aisle.

It was alright with you when Bush was doing it as long as he had the R behind his name. There is very little more ironic than a Bush supporter using the word "unethical" to describe a president.

If, "IF" Obama broke a law or did something unethical it:

- Didn't get thousands of Americans killed like Bush's unethical war in Iraq.

- It didn't out a CIA operative and thereby risk her life.

- It didn't destroy the American economy by giving tax breaks and corporate welfare to corporate cronies for putting millions of American workers out of work.

- It wasn't illegally spying on American citizens, directing US telecom companies to create databases of citizens, and violating the fourth amendment of the US constitution.

- It wasn't as unethical as tampering with and purging all documents submitted to Congress for the investigations into the outing of Valerie Plame and the firing of US Attorneys of all incriminating information and then refusing to testify.

- It wasn't destroying all emails that may have exposed the underhanded Bush/Cheney/Rove machinations.

- It didn't allow unregulated military contractors (Haliburton) to gouge the American taxpayers out of billions of dollars.

- It wasn't tampering with the 2004 election.

No "ethical" Bush supporter has any right to use the word "unethical" about another president.

Those don't count.

[7 Wishes]

Well, thanks. Since you've established the guidelines for reasonable, ethical, and fair debate, I now know how to construct arguments contextually, and will strive to continue to do so in the future, sir.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Bush fired 7 Attorneys and you all screamed....Clinton fired 93 (all of them) and yet nary a word...speaking of hypocrite...

Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan ALL cleaned house. That is normal at the start of a new president's term. The Bush controversy stemmed from US attorneys being fired mid-term for not doing Karl Rove's partisan bidding.

[donnaplease]

Right. A code cited only by Hannity, Beck, et al...that really has no application here, and a yahoo message board?

That's the best you can offer?

It's perfectly legal for a prospective or current Administration to offer someone a post with the expressed understanding that that particular candidate would not immediately leave that position (i.e. run for office). So you need to do better than that.

That is NOT evidence of any kind.

And it's amusing how you avoid addressing the issues the Dems on this board bring up, when they are steadfastly presented with irrefutable fact, but continue to peck away at the dung like a cackling chicken.

They didn't write the law, Daniel. It looks as if you are changing the particulars of the situation, as I understand them anyway. Are you saying that the BO camp (and Bill Clinton specifically) offered Sestak a job, and then said, "oh, by the way, if you accept this you aren't allowed to run for political office"...? Because that makes sooo much sense. As I understand it, they admitted they did what they are accused of, the only thing at quesion is whether or not it is illegal. By the looks of this law, it may be. Have others done it? I'm sure they have, and perhaps even far worse. The way I look at it, these issues should be dealt with each and every time they occur, not just used for political oneupmanship. And I mean that for BOTH sides of the aisle, which I believe I've said here before.

What issues am I avoiding? I'm not seeing a whole lot of issues being brought up by dems, just more of the same attack dog bullshit aimed at a former president. And also, I didn't bring this back up, Sherrie did.

[Rockindeano]

Bush fired 7 Attorneys and you all screamed....Clinton fired 93 (all of them) and yet nary a word...speaking of hypocrite...

Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan ALL cleaned house. That is normal at the start of a new president's term. The Bush controversy stemmed from US attorneys being fired mid-term for not doing Karl Rove's partisan bidding.

They serve at the pleasure of the POTUS and if they aren't doing things his way, out the door they go. Anytime.

You're a piece of shit. If you really think this way, then FUCK YOU. Karl Rove wanted to politicize the attorney's in a way never seen before. He was trying to affect elections based on firings. You know Goddamned well what those corrupt motherfuckers tried and did do. Again, you call yourself a patriot, an American? You're a piece of shit. To defend the crass action of a sleaze ball like Rove and a equally sleazy president in Bush is amazing. How do you sleep at night? And before any of you right wing nutballs say anything about Obama doing this, yes, I would want his head on a platter too if he pulled this shit.

[The_Noble_Cause]

They serve at the pleasure of the POTUS and if they aren't doing things his way, out the door they go. Anytime.

That's correct. And if the attorneys claim they faced political pressure before being terminated, it's the press's job to cover that.

[7 Wishes]

Sherrie, it is NOT illegal for anyone to offer someone a position in any capacity within an Administration with the understanding that individual will not run for public office, as that would automatically disqualify them. Keep fishing.

[RossValoryRocks]

Sherrie, it is NOT illegal for anyone to offer someone a position in any capacity within an Administration with the understanding that individual will not run for public office, as that would automatically disqualify them. Keep fishing.

Actually it is...VERY illegal...18 U.S.C. § 600 ( http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/29/600 ), as well as potentially, depending on if Dead Fish Emmanuel set it up 18 U.S.C. § 595 ( http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/29/595 )...it's OK to be offered a job for PAST political activity...that is patronage has been going on forever...It is NOT ok to offer a quid pro quo for FUTURE political activity.

For those who don't or won't click the link to the 18 U.S.C. § 600 here it is:

"Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."


That's the law...plain and simple. And it EXACTLY what happened.

Now you are REALLY Wishing...you should be down to 1 Wish by now...you have used up 6 of them trying to even IMAGINE that this wasn't illegal.

Now...did the President know about it? Probably not...I am sure Rahm insulated him. But there you have it...Bush had Rove...Obama has Rahm!

[7 Wishes]

We're talking about two different things, RVR.

Where is the proof? There is none. It is PERFECTLY legal to ask someone whether or not they plan on running for office, as that would DQ them from being able to serve the post.

[slucero]

Here's the section of the U.S. Code that is in question:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 600

§ 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

And here's the White House response..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... ressman-se

Uncompensated Advisory Board Options.
We found that, as the Congressman has publicly and accurately stated, options for Executive Branch service were raised with him. Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.

White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.

note the WHite House press release actually ADMITS discussing "options" with Sestak.... THREE TIMES.. and also implicates the White House... "smoking gun" anyone?

The White House lawyers must be reading a different US Code... because US CODE clearly does not differentiate between "directly or indirectly", and also does not require "compensation" to be offered for the law to be broken.

The White House admits discussing this with Sestak, calls the offer a discussion of "options", and even couches it as a way "which would avoid a divisive Senate primary".

Yup... this activity is illegal...

[7 Wishes]

You assholes are looking for smoke without a fire...and you're hypocritical sons of bitches, too. You're trying to extrapolate something that isn't there, while your party has been raping the Constitution since the first Nixon Administration. Bullshit.

[RossValoryRocks]

[quote="7 Wishes"]We're talking about two different things, RVR.

Where is the proof? There is none. It is PERFECTLY legal to ask someone whether or not they plan on running for office, as that would DQ them from being able to serve the post.[/quote


You CANNOT read, I swear. The LAW SAY'S it is NOT PERFECTLY LEGAL you fucking moron. It's spelled out in plain LANGUAGE! Next you will be telling me it's ok because Eric Holder ( A PATRONAGE POSITION) says it is. He is clearly protecting the President. They ALL do.

The proof is the BOTH Sestak and the Administration ADMITTED TO IT.

It has NOTHING to do with disqalification...it has to do with the JOB being offered in return to for not running...or in this case, to use your word, for accepting being DISQUALIFIED by accepting the job.

To Sestak's credit, he refused.

[RossValoryRocks]

You assholes are looking for smoke without a fire...and you're hypocritical sons of bitches, too. You're trying to extrapolate something that isn't there, while your party has been raping the Constitution since the first Nixon Administration. Bullshit.

#1 I am not Republican.
#2 Just because one party does it, then it is OK for the other to do so? Are you ACTUALLY thinking before you type? Or does this drivel a product of actual thought?
#3 Illegal is illegal. Period. Are you actually saying no Democrat has ever skated around the Constitution to get what they want? You cannot be that stupid.

[slucero]

It's hypocritical for both parties to openly violate the law... and then say "well the other guys are doing it too"...

Call it whatever you want.. BOTH sides do it and its still illegal... It still doesn't mean they should get a pass..

I want my Congress to serve the People... instead of being self-serving...

All that "Change" we voted for needs to start sometime... Now is as good a time as any... and it would look GOOD on Obama if he actually fired somebody for doing this, and tell the public exactly why... instead of letting his legal team do what every other administration (Dem and Rep) does... try to legally deny and justify it...


If we lose a few self-serving Dems AND Reps along the way, and get some public servants in their place.. .I'm all for it.





"In the Fall, fire 'em all"

[7 Wishes]

Come on, Stu. This is bullshit.

to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party

There is no evidence whatsoever, nor can it be assumed, that this was the premise of the offer to Sestak.

[7 Wishes]

I love this shit. With all the obvious, Constitution-be-damned lying and manipulation the GOP has specialized in for 35 years, THIS is the issue that triggers their collective conscience.

NOT the illegal arms-for-hostages deal (and you know damned well Reagan knew what was going on, as did Bush Sr.)...nor the illegal war Dubbya started...all the criminal activity of the previous Administration (including formulating energy policy behind closed doors, illegally, with the OIL INDUSTRY)...and THIS is what brings you to arms? What a joke.

[slucero]

Change has to start when it starts.. Who would you prefer get the credit for it... Obama/Democrats or the Republicans?

I don't care who gets the credit as long as it STARTS...

BOTH parties are culpable - both parties should pay for their malfeasance..

[RossValoryRocks]

I love this shit. With all the obvious, Constitution-be-damned lying and manipulation the GOP has specialized in for 35 years, THIS is the issue that triggers their collective conscience.

NOT the illegal arms-for-hostages deal (and you know damned well Reagan knew what was going on, as did Bush Sr.)...nor the illegal war Dubbya started...all the criminal activity of the previous Administration (including formulating energy policy behind closed doors, illegally, with the OIL INDUSTRY)...and THIS is what brings you to arms? What a joke.

I am not up in arms...just point out that the Administration or members of it at least broke the law. You seem to think that is ok because the Republicans broke the law too.

And yet...I ask you questions all you do is put up the smoke screen.

The "illegal war" Bush started was praised by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton of "I have no doubt that when I left office Saddam has weapons of Mass Destruction" fame, John Kerry...VERY few people on the left stood up and said a damn word against it...UNTIL they were running for office again.

In hindsight, always 20/20, going into Iraq was probably the wrong STRATEGY...but NOT illegal. Show me a law that was broken...you can't there isn't one...Bush had the UN, and the Congress authorize it. Period...legal...yup...ethical and smart...nope...

The joke is that you can't see past your politics and what BOTH sides are doing...BOTH OF THEM...you a blind fool...go take your muscle building supplements dude...to bad you don't pay attention to your brain building ones as well.