http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-attend-slain-nypd-officers-funeral_822383.html

Quote :

"Vice President Joe Biden will attend the funeral of a slain NYPD officer, the White House announced. “The President has asked Vice President Biden to attend the service for Officer Rafael Ramos and is grateful that the Vice President and Dr. Jill Biden will be traveling to New York City to attend the service on Saturday. Additional details will be forthcoming from the Vice President’s office,” said spokesman Eric Schultz. The president was on the golf course, in Hawaii, when the announcement was made. He's scheduled to return to Washington on January 4."

I guess president asshole still doesnt understand the concept of optics.

Cue his Wolf Web defenders-

"Well at least he isnt George Bush! Or something!"

12/23/2014 7:03:29 PM

Not popping in to defend, just pointing out that this ^ is more of the same bullshit I've learned to expect from conservatives:

He shows up to the funeral? He's just getting racial tension more riled up.

He doesn't show up to the funeral? He "doesnt understand the concept of optics."

12/23/2014 8:03:42 PM

its pretty obvious this is bad optics regardless of what you think he should do

a president showing up at a cop funeral is hardly going to stir racial tensions

if anything it would help quell them at this point since people are so convinced he supports "that bad guys" aka black people

im not taking sides here; im simply pointing things out that might maybe (just maybe) make him look like less of a pompous dickbag, thats all

12/23/2014 11:17:27 PM

And I'm simply pointing out that a significant portion of the population is going to perceive any action he takes as him being a pompous dickbag. If he did attend the funeral and conservatives didn't complain about his presence stirring up racial tension, I guarantee you they'd complain instead about wasted tax money in flying from Hawaii to the NY funeral, then back to Hawaii.

Republicans have become the party that cried wolf and because of that have lost whatever credibility they may have formerly had with me. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

12/24/2014 12:58:48 AM

i can agree with all that

what examples of crying wolf specifically drove you away

12/24/2014 7:47:26 AM

this small gesture is awesome:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/23/when-asked-to-sort-girls-and-boys-gifts-obama-destroys-toy-gender-stereotypes-video/

Quote :

"But then things got even more adorable. The President started putting the sports and the science toys into the ‘girls’ bin. Placing a basketball into the bin, Obama says: “I just wanna make sure some girls play some ball.” A person from the crowd queries his decision to put legos in the girls, rather than the boys collection – because they might not like them. The President responds: “Girls don’t like toys?” As he continues to sort, he comes across a T-Ball set. “T-Ball? Girls like T-Ball” and nodding, puts the set in the girls’ bin. The crowd is snapping photos, with some looking a little confused and he adds. “I’m just trying to break down these gender stereotypes.”"

12/24/2014 8:14:29 AM

^^
Death panels should probably fall into that category.

12/24/2014 12:38:42 PM

Let's see:

- record economic numbers
- increase in health care costs and insurance premiums are at record lows
- Obamacare enrollment is up from last year, uninsured are at record lows
- struck a deal with China on environmental reform
- on the verge of a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons that will ease sanctions and move the relationship between
the two countries in a positive direction for the first time ...... ever
- Cuba, immigration, net neutrality, and more

These are all topics relevant to Obama's credibility, yet this thread only gets bumped for shit like how he dressed at a press conference.

12/24/2014 1:47:41 PM

^^^^ Too numerous to mention them all, and I've had a long day of traveling and family time, but a sampling:

Benghazi: Sure, it's a tragedy, but the only political conspiracy that's apparent to me is the conservative attempt to smear the Obama administration. You (not you y0willy0, a general you) want to claim this as evidence that Obama is weak in the war on terror? About 12 embassies were attacked during the Bush administration. Twelve versus one seems like a substantial improvement to me. You're furious that Obama blamed it on a video when it's obviously a terrorist attack? Those are quite obviously not mutually exclusive--why can't it be a terrorist attack inspired by a video? Not to mention the fog of war confusion in determining everyone's motives. Plus, I've even seen quotes from one of the attackers claiming the video was one of the catalysts. And what's the response when an investigation clears the administration of any wrongdoing? Why, we need yet another investigation, of course!

Obamacare: Many things to mention (just like with Benghazi), but I'll focus on this one: I'm one of those guys with a pre-existing condition. If I didn't have full time employment, I'd be paying huge premiums for insurance. You want to complain about all those people who liked their plan but couldn't keep it? At least they can get a replacement. Just once I want to hear an acknowledgement from conservatives that a repeal will result in millions of people losing their plans without a chance for replacement. And don't give me that bullshit about "repeal and replace". A responsible legislator would have a replacement prepared ahead of repeal. I've seen about 50 House votes for repeal and zero consensus conservative replacement plans.

Executive Orders: I've talked to people who are convinced Obama has used more executive orders than any other president. Apparently not many people bother to fact check this stuff. Obama has the lowest rate of executive orders of any president in approximately the last 100 years. I've heard some say it's not the number, it's the type of exec orders, but I've never heard them offer any details substantiating this in any way.

Now about the media: Fox News would have you believe Obama is dividing the country. It seems pretty clear to me the media (particularly, but not exclusively, Fox News itself) is primarily to blame; far more than any particular politician. Politics/Media has "evolved" to this point: Nobody gives a shit about solving any problems; priority number one is to always make sure the other side gets blamed. In fact, this mindset even encourages creating more problems--More blame to pass off on your opponent.

(I put "evolved" in quotes because I'm not quite sure it's the appropriate word. I don't think this (where blaming takes priority over solving) is a new thing at all, but I think it's far more prevalent within our media drenched society--it makes blaming so much easier. And I'm also not saying this mindset is exclusive to conservatives; I think both sides are guilty, but in my perception conservatives are far more to blame for this).

There are many more things that piss me off about the whole political/media/crying wolf circus we have now, but I need rest for tomorrow.

And in all sincerity, Merry Christmas Everyone!

12/24/2014 11:12:05 PM

The claim that his "number of executive orders is low" is bullshit because he's been doing a lot of things through effectively the same channel, only calling them "executive memoranda" instead, and he's been doing it to avoid the accusation of using too many executive orders. Is he doing massively more orders and memoranda than previous presidents? Probably not. But to focus solely on orders when he is intentionally using an equivalent form by a different name for the purpose of its different name is wholly disingenuous.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/

12/25/2014 12:12:24 PM

Disingenuous? How in the fuck is it disingenuous on my part? When the dialogue goes:

Conservative: Obama has been unprecedented in his use of exec. orders.

Me: He's used them at a lesser rate than all recent presidents.

Conservative: Well but...I really meant the types of orders.

Me: What is it about these types?

Conservative: ??? (I'm not being disingenuous here. Maybe some conservatives have addressed this question, but I've never heard it addressed).

Me: Still waiting....

Conservative: Well but...I really meant executive memoranda as well as executive orders.

Me: Oh, this is the first time I've heard the complaint including exec. memoranda as well. And what about them?

Conservative (well, aaronburro, anyway): Well he's doing a lot of both exec. orders and exec. memoranda, but it's probably not massively more than previous presidents.

Me: Oh. Still waiting...this is unprecedented how, precisely?

[/dialogue]

Now again: How in the fuck am I the disingenuous one in this? All I see is more "crying wolf" from conservatives. You keep redefining the complaint and each time it's still not legitimate.

12/26/2014 12:54:41 AM

I think it's also only fair to point this out. From the above USA Today article:

Quote :

"When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents."

You know, the structure of that sentence implies to me that even the writer thinks Truman was justified in his use of executive actions, due to the "Do Nothing Congress".

I guess that means Obama is justified, too, since Congress has now proven it's possible to do Less than Nothing:

Quote :

"But compared to Washington today, the 80th Congress (1947-49) back in Truman’s day was a whirl of activity, at least in terms of legislation passed. “Indeed, [today’s] 113th Congress is on track to go down as the least productive in history,” writes Manu Raju at Politico.com. “So far, this Congress has only enacted 49 laws, the fewest since at least 1947, when the Congressional Record began tallying legislative activity on a yearly basis. In fact, the 80th Congress … enacted 388 public laws by July 1947.”"

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1123/Like-Harry-Truman-does-Obama-face-a-do-nothing-Congress-video

12/26/2014 1:14:08 AM

Quote :

"Disingenuous? How in the fuck is it disingenuous on my part?"

Do I need to explain this again? You supported your claim by pointing ONLY to the number of executive orders. Obama is specifically using executive memoranda to avoid scrutiny of issuing a lot of executive orders. But they accomplish the same thing and have the same treatment under the law. THAT is why it's disingenuous. I'm not making any argument towards the "types" of orders, to which you are now trying to move the goalposts. I'm merely mentioning the numbers, which is the primary thing you mentioned. I'm also not making any arguments about him using them more prolifically than anyone else.

In case you still don't get it, let me spell it out for you: I'm calling you out as a partisan hack for touting the talking point of "OMG, OBAMA HAS LESS EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAN THESE OTHER GUYS!!!!!!"

12/26/2014 12:57:16 PM

so the other side of the executive order argument isn't political hackary?

12/26/2014 3:11:36 PM

Oh, it is. Even invoking it is pretty much bullshit.

12/26/2014 7:15:09 PM

Quote :

"Do I need to explain this again? You supported your claim by pointing ONLY to the number of executive orders."

Are you an idiot incapable of following the structure of the conversation? I wasn't the one making a claim in the first place. I was RESPONDING to the conservative claim that Obama's executive orders were unprecedented, by stating he's issued them at a lower rate than all recent previous presidents.

If necessary to clarify further (and I expect it will be), the post of mine you were referring to in the first place was where I was responding to y0willy0's question, "What examples of crying wolf specifically drove you away?". I was merely making a response to the common conservative complaint on Obama's executive orders.

Quote :

"Obama is specifically using executive memoranda to avoid scrutiny of issuing a lot of executive orders. But they accomplish the same thing and have the same treatment under the law. THAT is why it's disingenuous."

I certainly don't like admitting ignorance, but I don't try and hide it either. In all candor, I wasn't even familiar with executive memoranda before you mentioned it. So thank you for informing me. But it's certainly not disingenuous on my part. If the original complaint had included all executive actions including orders and memoranda, I would have responded appropriately, but don't try and blame me if conservatives can't articulate their complaints any better than that. Furthermore, even when you do include both orders and memoranda, Obama still doesn't have massively more than other presidents. In other words, it's not unprecedented.

Quote :

"I'm not making any argument towards the "types" of orders, to which you are now trying to move the goalposts. I'm merely mentioning the numbers, which is the primary thing you mentioned."

You're not big on reading comprehension, are you? Here's what I said in the first place, "I've heard some say it's not the number, it's the type of exec orders, but I've never heard them offer any details substantiating this in any way." In other words, I wasn't the one moving the goalposts. I brought this up only because some conservatives moved the goalposts.

Quote :

"I'm also not making any arguments about him using them more prolifically than anyone else."

Fair enough, but then again, I wasn't directing my original comments to you, anyway. You act as if I'm putting words in your mouth when I think it was pretty clear I was referring to GENERAL conservative complaints. If they are not your complaints, then why are you trying to defend them?

Quote :

"In case you still don't get it, let me spell it out for you: I'm calling you out as a partisan hack for touting the talking point of "OMG, OBAMA HAS LESS EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAN THESE OTHER GUYS!!!!!!""

In case you still don't get it: I was specifically asked, ""What examples of crying wolf specifically drove you away?" I responded with a few examples, one of them being complaints about executive orders, along with a basic rebuttal. The fact that my doing this makes you think I'm a partisan hack strikes me strongly as projection on your part.

In other words, to be as clear as I can be: I am not saying there are not legitimate complaints about Obama. THE REASON I WAS TALKING ABOUT ILLEGITIMATE (IN MY OPINION) COMPLAINTS ABOUT OBAMA IS I WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO PROVIDE SOME EXAMPLES OF ILLEGITIMATE COMPLAINTS ABOUT OBAMA. FUCK YOU IF YOU THINK THAT MAKES ME A PARTISAN HACK.

AND IMPROVE YOUR READING COMPREHENSION, GODDAMIT!

[Edited on December 26, 2014 at 10:51 PM. Reason : tags]

12/26/2014 10:49:48 PM

Quote :

" I was RESPONDING to the conservative claim that Obama's executive orders were unprecedented, by stating he's issued them at a lower rate than all recent previous presidents."

With that rebuttal, therein lies a claim: that he's issuing them at a lower rate. Now, let's start over. Has he issued them at a lower rate? Technically, yes. Actually, no. And why? Because, as the article I posted states, he's using other methods to accomplish the same things, with the same force of law, but that have a different name, and he's using the other method intentionally so he can bust out a talking point of using EOs less. Thus, technically he issuing them at a lower rate, but he actually isn't. Capiche?

Quote :

"but don't try and blame me if conservatives can't articulate their complaints any better than that."

Yeah, I don't need to blame you for parroting a talking point without actually doing any research.

Quote :

"Furthermore, even when you do include both orders and memoranda, Obama still doesn't have massively more than other presidents. In other words, it's not unprecedented."

Nowhere in your original post did you mention "unprecedented use" of them.

Quote :

"Here's what I said in the first place, "I've heard some say it's not the number, it's the type of exec orders, but I've never heard them offer any details substantiating this in any way.""

AFTER first mentioning the number of EO's was lower. Clearly your first concern was with the number, with an second comment about the type. Thus, partisan-hackitude is firmly established.

1/1/2015 12:19:02 AM

Quote :

"About 12 embassies were attacked during the Bush administration. Twelve versus one seems like a substantial improvement to me. "

To be fair, we've had quite a few diplomatic missions attacked in one form or another under this administration.

1/1/2015 12:54:32 PM

^ Fair point, but the number of attacks is still down from the Bush administration.

^^ Whatever, troll.

1/2/2015 1:55:18 AM

I don't think that's entirely accurate. We still have a few more years of this administration and the number of attacks on diplomats and missions are in the same ballpark.

I'd argue that in some of these cases, the idea of expeditionary diplomacy has a fair bit to do with the uptick in attacks over the last two administrations.

1/2/2015 3:57:28 PM

Can liberals start admitting that what Obama's done here is good for their agenda? However you want to frame this economic recovery, it's good that it came under a Democratic WH that promotes progressive policies like UHC, more domestic government spending, and raising taxes on higher earners. It's a real blow to the economic theories trumpeted by the right.

2/6/2015 1:39:26 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/16/white-house-foia-regulations-deleted/24844253/

Plus or minus? I can't decide!

3/16/2015 6:19:55 PM

Quote :

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

Obama - 2009
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government


SMH

3/18/2015 10:23:38 AM

I acknowledge the Obama admin has been opaque, but I question the concept that "openness" means access to all work product, retroactively.

As human beings, I think we work better with some level of privacy in our internal communications. If Obama wanted to call Fox News a bunch of cocksuckers in an email or call Netanyahu a prick, he would hesitate or not do it, and this has to hurt communications. If our media weren't always frothing to make a scandal, I could see full access being useful, but in the current environment I think it just forces politicians to be even more secretive and go to greater lengths to get the privacy we all want.

I would amend foia so that individuals could request access to information about themselves, or in pursuit of a information relating to a legal investigation, and congress people can make requests for anything.

3/18/2015 10:57:23 AM

At a speech today in Cleveland Obama mentioned something about mandatory voting. I guess he needs to do more to get the lazy democrats off their asses.

This isn't without precedent though, unfortunately. Australia has some type of mandatory voting requirements.

3/18/2015 6:26:05 PM

I'm against mandatory voting. There should be less voting, if anything...

3/18/2015 6:36:55 PM

So, the US took Iran and Hezbollah off the terror threat list.


"Do we need any further proof that Obama is really a Muslim, likely a citizen of Iran, and the true leader of Hezbollah?"

- Pre-paraphrasing some GOP talking head, probably.

3/19/2015 9:50:45 AM

more like paraphrasing my FB feed

3/19/2015 1:59:36 PM

Quote :

"I'm against mandatory voting. There should be less voting, if anything..."

Fuck yeah there should. I wish more people would just stay at home watching America's Kidz got Singing and stuffing oreos into their dumb faces than go vote for someone they know nothing about. Shit, if they just stopped giving out those stickers turn out would probably drop another 5%.

Also, mandatory voting would require a constitutional amendment as it's plainly a violation of the first amendment. Not voting can be, and for many is, a form of protest over the lack of choice on the ballot or dearth of quality candidates.

3/20/2015 5:27:47 PM

I don't see how it would be a First Amendment issue, you can still abstain from voting, you just have to fill out a ballot though.

3/20/2015 6:40:49 PM

^^Do you really think he cares what the Constitution has to say on the matter?

Some people feel that their lack of a vote is a way to voice their opinion.

3/20/2015 8:51:30 PM

^^You seriously don't see how mandatory voting would violate the first amendment? Compelled speech is not free speech. What's more, you don't think that tracking whether or not someone voted might lead to tracking who they voted for? There are so many bad possible outcomes from this that it's hard to imagine that you really need to argue the fundamental freedom aspect.

One thing's for sure, it would almost certainly lead to even worse candidates and incumbents being even less likely to lose.

3/21/2015 6:08:23 AM

Quote :

"A new CNN/ORC poll finds most Americans say they would like a candidate who's a seasoned political leader, someone with an executive background, and someone who's willing to change Barack Obama's policies."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-perfect-candidate/index.html

Newsflash...people don't like Obama.

3/22/2015 9:32:35 AM

picked nova ....

Quote :

"the fuck's wrong with Obama ?!"

3/22/2015 10:54:18 AM

Republicans potential presidential candidates suck so bad..cake walk for Queen Hillary.

[Edited on March 22, 2015 at 1:31 PM. Reason : s]

3/22/2015 1:30:48 PM

IMHO, his policy and supposed leniency with Iran is causing, or going to cause, a ramp-up in nuclear armament in an age where we should be phasing nuclear arms out.

Saudia Arabia wants nukes now, and before long, there's gonna be the attitude of "if they can have them, so can we."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-says-it-wont-rule-out-building-nuclear-weapons-10139229.html

3/27/2015 1:30:51 PM

No no no, you see all that matters right now are the GOP threads.

Click on any of them and observe how they sit around patting each other on the back.

3/27/2015 1:52:17 PM

Obama's progress in US-Iranian relations help prevent Iran having nuclear weapons, not the opposite.

3/27/2015 2:00:34 PM

I call that "being naive."

...but whatever. All the other soapbox lefties can pile in here and take Iran at its word; that's fine.

3/27/2015 2:04:07 PM

It was GOP god Reagan who coined the phrase "trust, but verify" in regards to US-Soviet negotiations

If the GOP was able to adopt that policy with a nation that actually already had nuclear weapons, why are we so afraid of it in regards to a nation that isn't even actively trying to develop one at the moment.

3/27/2015 2:08:38 PM

Because they look different than we do.

But mostly, I don't think Russia ever stated that they wanted to obliterate a specific country. Maybe they did, I don't know.

But again, in an age where the talk is de-armament, if that is a word, why would we set up the scenario, a decade from now, that would allow them to have these weapons? Sure, the sanctions aren't doing what they were intended to do, but don't go easy on them because the sanctions don't work. Now, every middle-eastern country that isn't on the same side of Islam as Iran is going to want their own nukes just in case.

It's just going to create more escalation.

3/27/2015 2:32:53 PM

Not the same world anymore, quite frankly. We are more paranoid and our enemies are more fanatical.

You really don't think Iran has even an inkling of a bomb? I mean that's fine; I hope I'm wrong. I don't want the USGS to be the ones telling us they do when they detect a strange earthquake in Iran's mountains.

3/27/2015 2:33:02 PM

^^
I think the term is disarmament.

Any reason why Iran enriching uranium would be any more incentive than Israel's current stockpile?

3/27/2015 2:39:09 PM

^^^If sanctions don't work and negotiations are too soft, then the only option left is to start dropping bombs on them (or some level of military engagement). Those are the only 3 basic options.

[Edited on March 27, 2015 at 2:52 PM. Reason : just admit you're ready to start bombing them - unilaterally - and we can start the Iraq war #2]

3/27/2015 2:50:21 PM

Quote :

"why would we set up the scenario, a decade from now, that would allow them to have these weapons?"

that's a giant leap, it's not like any of the P5+1 is proposing cutting sanctions and then just sitting back and hoping they are happy enough to not do anything

3/27/2015 4:02:06 PM

-5 as President blames Malia having an asthma attack on global warming:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/8/obama-malias-asthma-attack-made-climate-change-per/

Michelle had previously said it might have been dust at a circus. Sorry but the most likely cause is the fact that her father smoked with the additional risk from living in Chicago, which is going to have more air pollution than a smaller town.

4/8/2015 7:06:59 PM

he didn't blame global warning

4/8/2015 8:02:15 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3030431/Obama-says-climate-change-personal-daughter-Malia-asthma-attack-toddler.html

4/8/2015 9:42:57 PM

Regardless of Obama's credibility, his media/graphics team is the GOAT.

[Edited on April 9, 2015 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2015 10:08:26 AM

I'm called a partisan hack even though I support gay marriage, I hate the tea party, I'm against anti-abortion laws (though think abortion is morally reprehensible), thought Bill Clinton was a good president, wasn't a huge fan of GWB, and I'm sure there are other issues that I lean toward the middle on.

Yet people like shrike and tgl can't find a single fault in Obama, no matter what he does. But I'm the partisan hack here.

4/9/2015 1:34:34 PM