PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Cabinet appointments


GarfieldJL
11-06-2008, 03:54 PM
This is an all time record, I may have been against President Clinton during his administration, but he took longer to make his first decision that I flat out disagree with. I'm staying off criticism of Obama's foreign policy stuff because he hasn't come up with appointments concerning that yet, nor has he been in a position here recently to make any judgements... Though if his first choice is any indication, he's already broken one promise, it looks like he's going to be extremely partisan to the point that if we compared it to Bush. Bush and Democrats would be getting together every morning and singing khombaya (sp?). I didn't even expect something this soon, less than 48 hours after he won the election to boot.

Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a former aide in the Clinton White House, has accepted Barack Obama's offer to be his chief of staff, Democratic officials say. Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/06/emanuel-accepts-offer-obamas-chief-staff/)

Now who is Rahm Emanuel you might ask, CNN has painted him as a centrist-center right. However, his voting record shows that he is a hard left partisan.

Newsbusters which usually makes a point of going after the liberal media has been having a field day of late just on the coverage of Electionday and the following days.
Emanuel's American Conservative Union average since joining the House in 2003 is a 13, with a 4 in 2006 and a zero in 2007. The Americans for Democratic Action voting index is even more emphatic: Emanuel averages out (by my math) to a 96 percent liberal score.

His ADA scores: 95 percent in 2003, 100 percent liberal perfection in 2004 and 2005, 90 percent in 2006, and 95 percent in 2007.
Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/11/06/rahm-emanuel-center-center-right)

Corroborating sources include:
American Conservative Union (http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#IL) on the right
and
Americans for Democratic Action (http://www.adaction.org/pages/publications/voting-records.php) on the left


Also Emanuel has a problem with paying taxes: Illinois Review (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/11/why-doesnt-rahm.html)

Litofsky
11-06-2008, 04:07 PM
What's so wrong with choosing a liberal to be a Democrat's Chief of Staff? That's not to say that he won't choose others of an opposing party.

Astor
11-06-2008, 04:08 PM
Though if his first choice is any indication, he's already broken one promise, it looks like he's going to be extremely partisan to the point that if we compared it to Bush.

What about the speculation that he'll be keeping Gates in Defence? does that not point to potentially 'bridging the gap'?

Instead of criticising every move he makes, why not actually wait and see how things pan out?

And before you start, I'm not interested in his past mistakes, or any 'socialist' leanings - no-one knows how Obama will be as President, and no-one's going to find out til after January 20th.

GarfieldJL
11-06-2008, 04:12 PM
What about the speculation that he'll be keeping Gates in Defence? does that not point to potentially 'bridging the gap'?

Instead of criticising every move he makes, why not actually wait and see how things pan out?

And before you start, I'm not interested in his past mistakes, or any 'socialist' leanings - no-one knows how Obama will be as President, and no-one's going to find out til after January 20th.

Well Doing some digging, I've found that he's had a problem with paying property taxes too. Illinois Review (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/11/why-doesnt-rahm.html)

Apparently he says his property is a nonprofit charity's headquarters.

Astor
11-06-2008, 04:14 PM
Well Doing some digging, I've found that he's had a problem with paying property taxes too. Illinois Review (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/11/why-doesnt-rahm.html)

Apparently he says his property is a nonprofit charity's headquarters.

And what does that have to do with his appointment to Obama's cabinet?

jrrtoken
11-06-2008, 04:18 PM
Agreed. I think that all of Obama's critics need to calm down and wait, and when I mean wait, I mean for six to twelve months after inauguration day.

Jae Onasi
11-06-2008, 04:42 PM
Emanuel's taxes are for the IRS to figure out, and we don't need to get into that here. Stick with the the experiences and qualifications (or lack thereof) of the potential cabinet staff and issues that directly apply to their abilities to do the job.

What's so wrong with choosing a liberal to be a Democrat's Chief of Staff? That's not to say that he won't choose others of an opposing party.
When's the last time you've seen any President appoint members of the opposing party to his cabinet? Obama is likely to appoint those whose views match his or who have supported him in some substantial way during the election process, and those folks will all be Democrats, and likely quite liberal ones like Emanuel at that.

Appointing Emanuel, who is apparently Jewish, may be a subtle message to Jews here in the US and to the Middle East in general. However, I think Obama has decided Emanuel will be chief of staff because he knows him and feels Emanuel will do well.

Achilles
11-06-2008, 04:48 PM
When's the last time you've seen any President appoint members of the opposing party to his cabinet? It was a junior Congressman from Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Administration_and_cabinet), was it not? :rolleyes:

I, for one, will be very disappointed of Obama does not make a few Republican appointments after basically saying that he would do precisely that.

Obama is likely to appoint those whose views match his or who have supported him in some substantial way during the election process, and those folks will all be Democrats, and likely quite liberal ones like Emanuel at that. I look forward to revisiting this thread later :)

Appointing Emanuel, who is apparently Jewish, may be a subtle message to Jews here in the US and to the Middle East in general. I thought it was because he was qualified and did a good job under Clinton. You could be right though, he could be angling for the Jew vote in 2012.

However, I think Obama has decided Emanuel will be chief of staff because he knows him and feels Emanuel will do well.I agree.

mimartin
11-06-2008, 04:53 PM
When's the last time you've seen any President appoint members of the opposing party to his cabinet? Bill Clinton appointed William Cohen as United States Secretary of Defense in 1997. Bush and Clinton both had members of the other party on their staff, but Cohen is the highest profile.

Tyrion
11-06-2008, 06:53 PM
It's not surprising that Obama wants a like-minded Chief of Staff to help run the cabinet. I'm just hoping he diversifies his cabinet to include both sides.

Jae Onasi
11-07-2008, 01:17 AM
Bill Clinton appointed William Cohen as United States Secretary of Defense in 1997. Bush and Clinton both had members of the other party on their staff, but Cohen is the highest profile.

OK, so not so long ago as I thought. :lol:

Tommycat
11-07-2008, 01:49 AM
No worse than Bush who said he was going to reach across the aisle and didn't.

Obama won by quite a bit. It's his choice. Let him choose who he feels is best for the position. I'm sure he's going to pick people who share his vision, reguardless of their party alignment.

Corinthian
11-07-2008, 03:40 AM
The fact that he's a hard left partisan doesn't bother me a bit, but the fact that he's wanted by the IRS for not paying his taxes is hilarious. I find myself reminded of Al Capone.

I wonder if this will be the first time in a Presidency that the Chief of Staff does his work from prison.

Tommycat
11-07-2008, 03:51 AM
The fact that he's a hard left partisan doesn't bother me a bit, but the fact that he's wanted by the IRS for not paying his taxes is hilarious. I find myself reminded of Al Capone.

I wonder if this will be the first time in a Presidency that the Chief of Staff does his work from prison.

Two words: Presidential pardon

Corinthian
11-07-2008, 04:28 AM
Crap. And that would have been comic gold, too.

GarfieldJL
11-07-2008, 10:58 AM
Emanuel's taxes are for the IRS to figure out, and we don't need to get into that here. Stick with the the experiences and qualifications (or lack thereof) of the potential cabinet staff and issues that directly apply to their abilities to do the job.


Jae, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you haven't read into the requirements for members of the cabinet and other appointees to an administration. If he has a tax problem then arguably that would disqualify him. President Clinton couldn't appoint several people to his administration due to the fact they weren't paying their taxes among other things.

From the highly partisan New York Times:
Mr. Stephanopoulos did not say whether these candidates would automatically be disqualified if they had failed to pay Social Security taxes for household workers. But White House officials said questions about compliance with immigration and tax laws were now being routinely asked of all candidates for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions.
--New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DF113EF93AA35751C0A9659582 60&fta=y)

Members of the President's cabinet, the Chief of Staff, etc. all have to go through an FBI background check. That's Federal Law, due to the fact he would need Security Clearence for the position. (Which if Obama hadn't been elected he couldn't serve on a Cabinet for precisely this reason I might add)

If the White House is further interested in your nomination, you will be asked to fill out FBI and financial disclosure forms for subsequent review and approval. To have a better understanding of the information you will be asked to provide, you can review the security clearance form for National Security Positions (SF86) and the financial disclosure form for higher level positions (SF278). You should know that most appointees are required to file financial disclosure statements annually during their service.--www.whitehouse.gov Appointments (http://www.whitehouse.gov/appointments/)

Questionare for National Security Positions (http://contacts.gsa.gov/webforms.nsf/0/67959D7F54B5826E85256A7200447F47/$file/sf86.pdf)


When's the last time you've seen any President appoint members of the opposing party to his cabinet? Obama is likely to appoint those whose views match his or who have supported him in some substantial way during the election process, and those folks will all be Democrats, and likely quite liberal ones like Emanuel at that.

Ronald Reagan had Democrats in his cabinet, and that's the first President I can name off the top of my head that did so. The most recent President to appoint members of the opposing party to his cabinet is President George W. Bush, and President Bill Clinton did so as well.
Democrat Bill Clinton had Republican William Cohen serve as secretary of defense during his second term.

Republican George W. Bush has had Democrat Norm Mineta serving in the top spot at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Prior to that post, Mineta served as secretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration.
--Cabinet Members from Opposing Party (http://askgleaves.blogspot.com/2004/11/cabinet-members-from-opposing-party.html)

Oh and Obama promised to have a bipartisan cabinet, another broken promise? Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3466823.ece)


Appointing Emanuel, who is apparently Jewish, may be a subtle message to Jews here in the US and to the Middle East in general. However, I think Obama has decided Emanuel will be chief of staff because he knows him and feels Emanuel will do well.

I thought Obama wanted to be bipartisan and a uniter. All I'm seeing thus for is a left wing wacko from Chicago. I thought Obama is supposedly a centrist judging from whom he has appointed thus far, it seems he's going to try to govern from the far left.

Furthermore, it just seems to me like the good old boy network from Chicago which made Washington DC look like it was made up of a bunch of saints. Politics of change alright, it's corruption to a whole new level.

You think our current President was divisive, well it didn't take Obama 48 hrs to top President Bush on divisiveness.

mimartin
11-07-2008, 11:23 AM
GarfieldJL you may want to take your own advice and read up on exactly what positions there are in the President’s Cabinet and how many there are.

1. Secretary of State
2. Secretary of the Treasury
3. Secretary of Defense
4. Attorney General
5. Secretary of the Interior
6. Secretary of Agriculture
7. Secretary of Commerce
8. Secretary of Labor
9. Secretary of Health and Human Services
10. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
11. Secretary of Transportation
12. Secretary of Energy
13. Secretary of Education
14. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
15. Secretary of Homeland Security

The White House Chief of Staff is a Cabinet-Level Administrator, with a Cabinet-Level Rank, but is not really a Cabinet member.

Cabinet-Level Administration Offices

1. Vice President of the United State – Biden
2. White House Chief of Staff
3. Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency
4. Director of the Office of Management and Budget
5. Director of the National Drug Control Policy
6. United State Trade Representative.

How many of those has Obama actually named candidates for? Personally I’d wait before I called someone a lair until the actually lied. Unless you are saying Obama lied because he did not choice a Republican as his running mate. :rolleyes:

GarfieldJL
11-07-2008, 11:44 AM
The White House Chief of Staff is a Cabinet-Level Administrator, with a Cabinet-Level Rank, but is not really a Cabinet member.

mimartin, the White House Chief of Staff is extremely important.

The White House Chief of Staff is the highest-ranking member of the Executive Office of the President of the United States and a senior aide to the President. Some individuals who have held the position, including Sherman Adams, have been dubbed "The Second-Most Powerful Man in Washington" due to the nature of the job. -- White House Chief of Staff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Chief_of_Staff)

How many of those has Obama actually named candidates for? Personally I’d wait before I called someone a lair until the actually lied. Unless you are saying Obama lied because he did not choice a Republican as his running mate.

I'm not even talking about Sir Gaff-a-lot, the Chief of Staff is the highest ranking member in the Executive Office outside the President. If he was serious about not being partisan he would have chosen a moderate, instead he chose an extremely partisan individual from the far-left.

Edit Breaking News:
First out of the gate were revelations about Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the Obama supporter and Congressional Democratic Caucus chairman Obama has tapped to be his Chief of Staff (please see my colleague Jeff Poor's November 6 report on this subject).

On Friday, ABC's Brian Ross reported that Emanuel was on the Board of Directors of the failed financial institution Freddie Mac, a nice little tidbit conservatives on radio and in the blogosphere felt was important during this campaign, but for the most part mainstream media outlets didn't care about...conveniently until now (emphasis added, photo courtesy ABCNews.com):
--Truth Leaks Begin Emanuel was Director Freddie Mac (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/11/07/truth-leaks-begin-emanuel-was-director-freddie-mac)

ABC News (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6201900&page=1)

And that's why there are Background Checks that are supposed to be conducted before naming cabinet appointments.

mimartin
11-07-2008, 12:12 PM
mimartin, the White House Chief of Staff is extremely important. Didn't say it wasn't. And that matter why? It proves nothing, it means nothing. I would not expect a President to pick someone outside their own party to be Chief of Staff. I can't find where the Chief of Staff has ever been appointed from the opposing party.

Obama never said anything about making the Chief of Staff a Republican. He has a few more selection before he did not keep his campaign promise. Even then some on the right will not be satisfied because Obama is likely to pick a moderate.

And that's why there are Background Checks that are supposed to be conducted before naming cabinet appointments. or running mates. :D

GarfieldJL
11-07-2008, 12:19 PM
Didn't say it wasn't. And that matter why? It proves nothing, it means nothing. I would not expect a President to pick someone outside their own party to be Chief of Staff. I can't find where the Chief of Staff has ever been appointed from the opposing party.


I didn't say he had to pick someone outside his party, I am saying that picking a left-wing nut that doesn't pay his taxes, and is potentially partially responsible for the Financial Meltdown is a cause of concern.


Obama never said anything about making the Chief of Staff a Republican. He has a few more selection before he did not keep his campaign promise. Even then some on the right will not be satisfied because Obama is likely to pick a moderate.

Uh huh, well a rumor about another lower level potential appointee has came out and we can kiss free speech goodbye. The rumor is that he's Obama's choice for FCC Commisioner.

Obama's new FCC Transition Head Talk Radio's Executioner (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/11/06/obamas-new-fcc-transition-head-talk-radios-executioner)

Seriously, folks we could be looking at losing our first amendment rights, and it's another far left individual.

Washington -- President-elect Barack Obama is expected to name Washington, D.C. lawyer Henry Rivera, a Democrat, to head a transition team focused on the Federal Communications Commission, according to informed sources.--http://www.multichannel.com/CA6612005.html

Guess Democrats like Obama are only for free speech when they agree with it.

Henry Rivera, a longtime radical leftist, lawyer and former FCC commissioner, is expected to lead the push to dismantle commercial talk radio that is favored by a number of Democratic Party senators. Rivera will play a pivotal role in preventing critics from having a public voice during Obama's tenure in office.

Rivera, who resigned from the FCC nearly a quarter-century ago during the Reagan years, believes in a doctrine of "communications policy as a civil rights issue".

His exit during the Reagan Administration paved the way for the Fairness Doctrine's repeal when the late president appointed Patricia Diaz Dennis in 1986 to fill out the rest of Rivera's term. Had this not occurred, talk radio as we know it today would not exist.
--Obama Appoints Radical Media Activist (http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-appoints-radical-media-activist.html)

Also your Comment about Governor Palin was out of line, because she was exonerated...

In conclusion, judging from this appointment and the Obama's Chief of Staff Appointment we're looking at a far left fringe cabinet.

mimartin
11-07-2008, 12:29 PM
I didn't say he had to pick someone outside his party, I am saying that picking a left-wing nut that doesn't pay his taxes, and is potentially partially responsible for the Financial Meltdown is a cause of concern.
I thought you wrote before that Obama was the most liberal member of Congress. So Rahm Emanuel must be right of Obama.

I will honor Jae's request, as she is a moderator.

I also thought you wrote ACORN and Obama was responsible for the Financial Meltdown.

GarfieldJL
11-07-2008, 12:42 PM
I thought you wrote before that Obama was the most liberal member of Congress. So Rahm Emanuel must be right of Obama.

I will honor Jae's request, as she is a moderator.

I also thought you wrote ACORN and Obama was responsible for the Financial Meltdown.

ACORN and Obama are responsible, however Rahm bears responsibility as well because he was a Director for Freddie Mac.

Also there is more to this:

Nicknamed "Rahmbo," he once mailed a dead fish to a Democratic pollster who got on his bad side during a long-ago congressional race. Outraged over what he regarded as disloyal Democrats during Clinton's first presidential campaign, he stunned dinner companions by rattling off names of the offenders, each time stabbing the restaurant table with a dinner knife and shouting, "Dead." --Emanuel accepts offer Obama's as Chief of Staff (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/06/emanuel-accepts-offer-obamas-chief-staff/)

From Same article:
"This is an ironic choice for a President-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil, and govern from the center," Boehner said.

I really don't believe Emanuel could pass a Background check at this point.

mimartin
11-07-2008, 12:51 PM
I’m going back a few posts because I ignored a post, but I want clarification.

the Chief of Staff is the highest ranking member in the Executive Office outside the President. Can you point out the Chief of Staff on this list. I can’t seem to find it, but there are a few other Cabinet member on the list.

1 Vice President

2 Speaker of the House of Representatives

3 President pro tempore of the Senate

4 Secretary of State

5 Secretary of the Treasury

6 Secretary of Defense

7 Attorney General

8 Secretary of the Interior

9 Secretary of Agriculture

— Secretary of Commerce

— Secretary of Labor

10 Secretary of Health and Human Services

11 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

12 Secretary of Transportation

13 Secretary of Energy

14 Secretary of Education

15 Secretary of Veterans Affairs

16 Secretary of Homeland Security


I've gone over it more than a few times and cannot seem to see it here, but it has to be here because you say it is the "highest ranking member in the Executive Office outside the President." So wouldn't this "highest ranking member" make the list of succession before other members of the Executive Branch or at the very least make the list. :confused:

Achilles
11-07-2008, 12:58 PM
the Chief of Staff is the highest ranking member in the Executive Office outside the President.No wonder Dick Cheney's been so pissed off these last 8 years.

GarfieldJL
11-07-2008, 01:26 PM
I’m going back a few posts because I ignored a post, but I want clarification.

Can you point out the Chief of Staff on this list. I can’t seem to find it, but there are a few other Cabinet member on the list.


Going through your list, uh that looks like the order of succession or something.


1 Vice President


The Vice President technically presides over the senate and in all reality has very little power, they are there if the President is incapacitated, impeached, or killed.


2 Speaker of the House of Representatives


That is a member of the House of Reprentatives and is a Legislative Branch position it is not appointed.


3 President pro tempore of the Senate

Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_Senate), again this is a member of the Legislative Branch not the Executive Branch


4 Secretary of State


Is charged with being the diplomatic voice for the country...


5 Secretary of the Treasury

6 Secretary of Defense

7 Attorney General

8 Secretary of the Interior

9 Secretary of Agriculture

— Secretary of Commerce

— Secretary of Labor

10 Secretary of Health and Human Services

11 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

12 Secretary of Transportation

13 Secretary of Energy

14 Secretary of Education

15 Secretary of Veterans Affairs

16 Secretary of Homeland Security


Those are all members of the cabinet, and/or positions in the executive Branch but you left some members off. Including the Chief of Staff.


I've gone over it more than a few times and cannot seem to see it here, but it has to be here because you say it is the "highest ranking member in the Executive Office outside the President." So wouldn't this "highest ranking member" make the list of succession before other members of the Executive Branch or at the very least make the list. :confused:

This isn't about the list of succession, this is about what the Chief of Staff does and the powers the Chief of Staff holds.

Cabinet-level administration offices
Six positions have cabinet-level rank, which allows these individuals to attend Cabinet meetings without being secretaries of executive departments
--United States Cabinet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet)

Included in those six is the White House Chief of Staff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Chief_of_Staff)

Again, the order of succession doesn't matter one bit, the Chief of Staff is in charge of helping to set policy for the President.

mimartin
11-07-2008, 01:56 PM
Those are all members of the cabinet, and/or positions in the executive Branch but you left some members off. Including the Chief of Staff.:confused::confused::confused::confused::con fused::confused::confused::confused::confused::con fused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

You said the Chief of Staff was the highest ranking member outside of the President of the Executive Branch. I gave you the order of succession. If you believe the Chief of Staff has been left off in error, then you may want to take this up with Congress as this is the list set forth by Presidential Succession Act of 1947.

I fail to see how you can say the Chief of Staff is the highest ranking member of the Executive Branch behind the President and the Chief of Staff is not even on this list. I believe "highest ranking" is untrue or overstated and you are just trying to use it to make your point.

FWIW I know what and who the Cabinet members are, that isn’t the question. I also understand the power of the Chief of Staff. I am just disputing your assessment that the Chief of Staff is the highest ranking member of the Executive Branch behind the President. You can water down your reply with any other unrelated information you would like, but that will not make the Chief of Staff suddenly rise in rank.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 02:06 PM
Garfield,

Regardless of how you would like to spin it the Vice President of the United States is the highest ranking member of the Executive Branch, outside of the President. You can revise your earlier comment or drop the point. If you continue to repeat debunked points, I'm going to start reporting posts.

GarfieldJL
11-07-2008, 02:46 PM
Regardless of how you would like to spin it the Vice President of the United States is the highest ranking member of the Executive Branch, outside of the President. You can revise your earlier comment or drop the point. If you continue to repeat debunked points, I'm going to start reporting posts.

You're referring to the order of succession, I'm referring to the actual power they wield and their responsibilities while in their current office. You are deliberately try to derail the topic.

The formal powers and role of the vice president are limited by the Constitution to becoming President should the President become unable to serve (e.g. due to the death, resignation, or medical impairment of the President) and sometimes acting as the presiding officer of the U.S. Senate. As President of the Senate, the Vice President has two primary duties: to cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock and to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College. For example, in the first half of 2001, the Senators were divided 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats and Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote gave the Republicans the Senate majority. (See 107th United States Congress.) --wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States)

This has absolutely nothing to do with the order of succession, this has to do with powers they actually wield.

The roles of the Chief of Staff are both managerial and advisory and can include the following duties, depending on the President's style of conducting business:
Managerial

Select key White House staff and supervise them
Structure the White House staff system
Control the flow of people into the Oval Office
Manage the flow of information


Advisory

Advise the President on issues of politics, policy and management issues
Protect the interests of the President
Negotiate with Congress, other members of the executive branch, and extragovernmental political groups to implement the President's agenda
--wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Chief_of_Staff)

The Chief of Staff wields a lot more power than the Vice President, though the Vice President is first in line if the President is incapacitated, the VP has no real power unless that happens, otherwise the Vice President can't do much of anything.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 02:53 PM
Nope. You're deliberately bringing up order of succession and then accusing us of using it to go off topic. You bring up rank and then try to change the topic to power. Power is subjective. I'll go create a wikipedia article right now which states that the First Lady wields more power in the White House than the President, but that isn't going to make me correct (even though I probably am).

So again, the highest ranking Executive aside from the President, is the Vice President. He is an elected official that has responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. Seriously man, if you can't even keep track of your own argument...:eyeraise:

GarfieldJL
11-07-2008, 02:58 PM
Nope. You're deliberately bringing up order of succession and then accusing us of using it to go off topic. You bring up rank and then try to change the topic to power. Power is subjective. I'll go create a wikipedia article right now which states that the First Lady wields more power in the White House than the President, but that isn't going to make me correct (even though I probably am).

mimartin brought up the order of succession, I pointed out that it had nothing to do with this though I humored him by responding to his posts.
mimartin's posts: http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2550493&postcount=17 and http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2550545&postcount=23

My response: http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2550564&postcount=25

In my response I point out repeatedly that what mimartin is referring to is the order of succession in the advent of the President's incapacitation or death, and that it doesn't have anything to do with the powers they wield, nor does it refer to the responsibilities they have.


So again, the highest ranking Executive aside from the President, is the Vice President. He is an elected official that has responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. Seriously man, if you can't even keep track of your own argument...:eyeraise:

Again, you're attempting to derail the topic, the VP doesn't have much in the way of power or responsibility, the Chief of Staff technically has more power than the Vice President. I don't really care what the order of succession is, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual power and responsibilities that they have.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 03:00 PM
mimartin brought up the order of succession, I pointed out that it had nothing to do with this though I humored him by responding to his post.
mimartin's post: http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2550493&postcount=17Ignored.

Again, you're attempting to derail the topic, the VP doesn't have much in the way of power or responsibility, the Chief of Staff technically has more power than the Vice President. I don't really care what the order of succession is, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual power and responsibilities that they have.Please go back and re-read my post.

Also, this post has been reported.

Jae Onasi
11-07-2008, 03:02 PM
OK, the point is made that order of precedence/succession and 'the actual power and influence behind the scenes on the President' are two different things. mimartin and Achilles are talking about the former, Garfield's talking about the latter, and these two things were getting confused.

To clarify this, it's a discussion of how much influence Emanuel is going to have as Chief of Staff on Obama and his presidency, regardless of the Chief of staff not being on the order of succession. Let's move on from there, please, I don't want to deal with 5000 reported posts over minutiae.

Astor
11-07-2008, 03:03 PM
Oh and Obama promised to have a bipartisan cabinet, another broken promise?

There's been one official choice so far - there's still plenty of people he could pick.

Only one person so far, and you're already calling for his head?

Again, what about the rumours that Gates will be kept on in Defence? From what I gather, he's a pretty popular guy on both sides of the house.

Achilles
11-07-2008, 03:05 PM
OK, the point is made that order of precedence/succession and 'the actual power and influence behind the scenes on the President' are two different things. mimartin and Achilles are talking about the former, Garfield's talking about the latter, and these two things were getting confused. Not at all. The discussion was "rank". I think mimartin and I have been very clear about what Garfield said.

mimartin
11-07-2008, 03:05 PM
I made a promise, that I will not break by replying.

Ranking – Position in relation to others.
Power – Control and influence.

Now who brought up ranking?

GarfieldJL
11-07-2008, 03:06 PM
There's been one official choice so far - there's still plenty of people he could pick.

Only one person so far, and you're already calling for his head?

Again, what about the rumours that Gates will be kept on in Defence? From what I gather, he's a pretty popular guy on both sides of the house.

The Chief of Staff is the guy that serves as the President's chief advisor and works to get the President's political agenda through congress. Judging from who he chose, you can expect far left agenda to be the policies that they are attempting to push through.

@mimartin
Respectfully there are two seperate determinations of rank, the actual power they have, and the order of succession. I was referring to rank as far as power and influence, you were talking about the order of succession. As far as power goes the VP is pretty close to the bottom.

Astor
11-07-2008, 03:09 PM
The Chief of Staff is the guy that serves as the President's chief advisor and works to get the President's political agenda through congress. Judging from who he chose, you can expect far left agenda to be the policies that they are attempting to push through.

I'm already aware of his role in the cabinet. I was saying that there's only be one person chosen so far.

And, i'll ask again, what about Gates' possibility of staying on as Sec'y of Defence?

Achilles
11-07-2008, 03:12 PM
And, i'll ask again, what about Gates' possibility of staying on as Sec'y of Defence?And not just Gates' with the Defense role.

Lots of names are being floated for lots of positions. Link (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/06/names_surface_for_top_obama_administration_jobs/)

Jae Onasi
11-07-2008, 03:16 PM
Not at all. The discussion was "rank". I think mimartin and I have been very clear about what Garfield said.

And I think Garfield was using the incorrect term 'rank' when it appears he meant 'power/influence on the President', hence the clarification that it doesn't appear to be a succession argument before this gets anymore confusing.

Oh and Obama promised to have a bipartisan cabinet, another broken promise?You can't accuse him of a broken promise until all the cabinet/staff positions are filled and there's no bipartisanship. Evaluating the liberalness of his staff/cabinet from one data point isn't very fair.

GarfieldJL
11-07-2008, 03:17 PM
I'm already aware of his role in the cabinet. I was saying that there's only be one person chosen so far.

The Chief of Staff pretty much sets the tone of the administration, it would be like McCain having put Ann Coulter as his Chief of Staff advising him on policy if he had won.



And, i'll ask again, what about Gates' possibility of staying on as Sec'y of Defence?

I'm not going to entertain that notion until after he names the appointment. I'm just going off who he has appointed thus far, which is his Chief of State, and his new FCC Commisioner (whom may not be a cabinet member but still wields significant power), and they are both on the far-left fringe.

And I think Garfield was using the incorrect term 'rank' when it appears he meant 'power/influence on the President', hence the clarification that it doesn't appear to be a succession argument before this gets anymore confusing.

Actually I was giving a direct quote from an article, so I wasn't the one using the correct term, if anything it was the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Chief_of_Staff).

You can't accuse him of a broken promise until all the cabinet/staff positions are filled. Evaluating the liberalness of his staff/cabinet from one data point isn't very fair.

Actually it's from more than one data points, just one happens to be outside the cabinet, as I stated earlier.

KinchyB
11-07-2008, 03:33 PM
Lots of names are being floated for lots of positions. Link (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/06/names_surface_for_top_obama_administration_jobs/)

Sorry Achilles, but expecting everyone to look at the facts and draw conclusions from what is actually presented is somewhat unreasonable. Especially when the facts go against their flawed logic, and could risk a slight bit of disillusionment in their "perfect little world".

For example... you can easily tell that what Obama's agenda is based off of his first pick for COS... just like you could tell that McCain was going to win the election when he won the first state... oh wait... nm. :xp:

GarfieldJL
11-24-2008, 04:35 PM
Sorry Achilles, but expecting everyone to look at the facts and draw conclusions from what is actually presented is somewhat unreasonable. Especially when the facts go against their flawed logic, and could risk a slight bit of disillusionment in their "perfect little world".

For example... you can easily tell that what Obama's agenda is based off of his first pick for COS... just like you could tell that McCain was going to win the election when he won the first state... oh wait... nm. :xp:

Heh, cute except for the fact he has been continuing to name left wing wackos to his cabinet.

In case you've missed the guy he wants to be the Attorney General whom was behind the last minute pardon of a guy on the FBI's most wanted list as well as terrorists...

In fact the only intelligent choice I've heard thus far is Hillary Clinton, because at least she is more of a moderate.

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-24-2008, 06:50 PM
Heh, cute except for the fact he has been continuing to name left wing wackos to his cabinet.Oh well. He won, he can appoint pretty much anyone he wants. With the monumental ****-ups of many right-wing politicians in the last 8 years, he doesn't have much of a choice. <snipped flamebait>

jmac; With all the problems Kavars has had recently I would strongly advise you are careful and cautious about what you post, I had to delete an off-topic snipe of yours yesterday, and now this, anything further and you will receive infractions. Post on-topic, and free of sniping or inciting anger in other members please. Your help in making Kavars friendly as a senior member would be most helpful :) -- thanks j7

The Doctor
11-24-2008, 06:55 PM
Oh well. He won, he can appoint pretty much anyone he wants. With the monumental ****-ups of many right-wing politicians in the last 8 years, he doesn't have much of a choice. <snipped>
I'm having this quote framed, and hanging it over my desk.

GarfieldJL
11-25-2008, 05:34 PM
Oh well. He won, he can appoint pretty much anyone he wants. With the monumental ****-ups of many right-wing politicians in the last 8 years, he doesn't have much of a choice.


Last I checked, none of Bush's cabinet members are responsible for the Presidential Pardons of Mark Rich, and Puerto Rican Terrorists.

jrrtoken
11-25-2008, 06:06 PM
Last I checked, none of Bush's cabinet members are responsible for the Presidential Pardons of Mark Rich, and Puerto Rican Terrorists.Some proof would be welcome.

GarfieldJL
11-30-2008, 02:05 PM
Some proof would be welcome.


Larry King Guests all Conduct Love Fest for Erik Holder Despite Marc Rich Pardon Role (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/19/larry-king-guests-all-conduct-love-fest-eric-holder-despite-marc-rich-)

There are other sources that you can find this information in too, however you're not going to find an outcry with most media outlets because they have been committing media malpractice for over a year.

jrrtoken
11-30-2008, 05:33 PM
Larry King Guests all Conduct Love Fest for Erik Holder Despite Marc Rich Pardon Role (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/19/larry-king-guests-all-conduct-love-fest-eric-holder-despite-marc-rich-)Could you please find one without obvious bias, as indicated by its headline?
There are other sources that you can find this information in too, however you're not going to find an outcry with most media outlets because they have been committing media malpractice for over a year.Sure. :dozey:

GarfieldJL
11-30-2008, 06:24 PM
Could you please find one without obvious bias, as indicated by its headline?

And none of these are nonbiased sources all have a reputation of being Left Wing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081120/pl_politico/15805
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holder20-2008nov20,0,532485.story

And here is a copy of the search.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Marc+Rich+pardon+eric+holder&aq=f&oq=

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-30-2008, 06:30 PM
Last I checked, none of Bush's cabinet members are responsible for the Presidential Pardons of Mark Rich, and Puerto Rican Terrorists.And last I checked none of his cabinet members are responsible for any of the numerous felonies committed by members of the Bush administration.

GarfieldJL
11-30-2008, 06:34 PM
And you give me any specifics I'll go after them too, however the problem with your argument is that in Bush's case they did what they did while they were already in office, Obama's people are already in trouble before they even get into office.

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-30-2008, 07:18 PM
So they're okay because they got away with their poo for longer? And from the articles you linked to, Holder didn't actually do anything wrong, it's just "Republican investigators" who said Holder "gave at least a partial endorsement" of Rich's pardon (oh no some guy who may or may not have broken a few tax laws over 20 years ago got pardoned 7 years ago fasdfsdfsdf).

whew my god jonathan i dunno what i was thinking when i swore in my above post thanks for editing the asterisks that it got turned into by the vb language filter when it got posted wow i need to get my mind right that was way out of line

True_Avery
11-30-2008, 11:18 PM
And you give me any specifics I'll go after them too, however the problem with your argument is that in Bush's case they did what they did while they were already in office, Obama's people are already in trouble before they even get into office.
So, you are immune to crimes when they are done while you hold the office?

I believe there is a type of government that goes by those rules:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

It seems to me you are simply favoring an administration running under your flag.

Jae Onasi
12-01-2008, 01:14 PM
If you'd like to dicuss pardons, it might be better to start a new thread for that. :) I think it will make for some interesting discussion.

Heard on the radio today, so I think I''m missing a couple people. This is assuming they are confirmed, of course, but we'll be seeing the following people:

Sec'y of State--Hillary Clinton. With her connections, experience as Senator and First Lady visiting foreign countries and meeting dignataries, and her unbelievable energy, I think she'll do well in the job. One could be cynical I suppose and say Obama is 'keeping friends close and enemies even closer', but I think it's far more likely that he chose her, /and/ she accepted, because they both thought she'd do a terrific job. In terms of Clinton, this is actually probably a better spot for her to do something effective than the VP job might have been

Sec'y of defense--Gates is staying on. He managed to turn around the awful mess Rumsfeld created and make the Iraq situation better in terms of supporting the fledgling democracy and taking out the militant extremists who threatened Iraq.

Obama said he'd like to have /combat/ troops out of Iraq 16 months after he takes office, but was careful to point out support troops may be needed longer. He also noted the situation was worsening in Afghanistan and South Asia in paparticular. He made a comment about their being 'one President at a time' in regards to the Americans affected by the Mumbai tragedy--a rather oblique way of giving the nod to Bush in terms of who was in charge now.
Attorney Gen.--Holden. I don't know a lot about him, but his name had been floated for a few weeks so there's no surprise there.

Homeland Security--Napolitano. Some thought Richardson would do a better job, but I don't really know enough about her to say one way or another. Again, her name had been floated a couple weeks so that was no surprise, either.

National Security Advisor--missed that one, I'll edit in later. This is actually a very important job since this person advises the President on major foreign issues, particularly trouble spots, and it's generally overlooked by the press. To be fair, though, the NSA deals with the most highly classified information in the gov't, so they generally can't talk a lot about what they do anyway. If you want to have an idea of what future foreign issues we''ll be dealing with, watch what the NSA is talking about today.

Ambassador to the UN--Susan Rice, iirc. Can't tell you much about her, but I view that more as a fluff job than the others, not because of the US but because the UN has become such an impotent force on so many things.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head right now.

GarfieldJL
12-01-2008, 01:30 PM
If you'd like to dicuss pardons, it might be better to start a new thread for that. :) I think it will make for some interesting discussion.


In this case when it has to do with Obama's appointees, I must respectfully disagree, and here's why.

By assisting in getting certain individuals pardoned and not following proper procedure, additionally there are indications that bribery was potentially involved, the question becomes why would Obama appoint someone with such a disreputable past? The mainstream media says this guy is a centrist which he clearly isn't. You can't even argue that it's guilt by association because the man participated in it.

Fact is there is a clear pattern emerging here, and as I've pointed out before how many dots does one need to indicate that these aren't random blips.


Heard on the radio today, so I think I''m missing a couple people. This is assuming they are confirmed, of course, but we'll be seeing the following people:


I can give you a rundown on a few of them.


Sec'y of State--Hillary Clinton. With her connections, experience as Senator and First Lady visiting foreign countries and meeting dignataries, and her unbelievable energy, I think she'll do well in the job. One could be cynical I suppose and say Obama is 'keeping friends close and enemies even closer', but I think it's far more likely that he chose her, /and/ she accepted, because they both thought she'd do a terrific job. In terms of Clinton, this is actually probably a better spot for her to do something effective than the VP job might have been


Quite frankly she should stay in the Senate, he's offering her the position so she'll be replaced. Fact is that her husband's financial connections could undercut her work as Secretary of State.


Sec'y of defense--Gates is staying on. He managed to turn around the awful mess Rumsfeld created and make the Iraq situation better in terms of supporting the fledgling democracy and taking out the militant extremists who threatened Iraq.

Which doesn't do any good because Obama wants to pull out regardless of the consequences.


Obama said he'd like to have /combat/ troops out of Iraq 16 months after he takes office, but was careful to point out support troops may be needed longer.


His campaign promise was to pull them out regardless. Wasn't Rumsfeld's drawing down troops too soon a contributor of the mess that we needed the troop surge to fix.


He also noted the situation was worsening in Afghanistan and South Asia in paparticular.

Then why is he planning to gut the budget that the Military has to work with.


Attorney Gen.--Holden. I don't know a lot about him, but his name had been floated for a few weeks so there's no surprise there.


He's the man that got all those people pardoned during Clinton's last hours in office. You can do a google search and find a ton of articles on this guy.


Homeland Security--Napolitano. Some thought Richardson would do a better job, but I don't really know enough about her to say one way or another. Again, her name had been floated a couple weeks so that was no surprise, either.

Unfamiliar with her name but I can do some research.

jrrtoken
12-01-2008, 04:27 PM
The mainstream media says this guy is a centrist which he clearly isn't.He ain't a liberal, he's a centrist. The chart proves it:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png
Fact is there is a clear pattern emerging here, and as I've pointed out before how many dots does one need to indicate that these aren't random blips.You've pointed them out through a blurred, biased looking glass that proves absolutely nothing. If you'd stop posting links to articles with smearing headlines such as "Larry King Guests all Conduct Love Fest for Erik Holder Despite Marc Rich Pardon Role", then maybe I'll actually consider them with some merit, but so far, they put me off from the get go.
Quite frankly she should stay in the Senate, he's offering her the position so she'll be replaced. Fact is that her husband's financial connections could undercut her work as Secretary of State.:confused::confused::confused:

Uh, in this post (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2557372&postcount=42), you said that you wanted Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State. So which one is it?

GarfieldJL
12-01-2008, 04:40 PM
He ain't a liberal, he's a centrist. The chart proves it:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png
You've pointed them out through a blurred, biased looking glass that proves absolutely nothing. If you'd stop posting links to articles with smearing headlines such as "Larry King Guests all Conduct Love Fest for Erik Holder Despite Marc Rich Pardon Role", then maybe I'll actually consider them with some merit, but so far, they put me off from the get go.
:confused::confused::confused:


You do realize you can lie on those tests, and to be blunt, I posted some left wing sources concerning that pardon too, which you apparently didn't read and/or simply ignored.
I even posted the search so you could look at over 60,000 hits on the topic.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Marc+Rich+pardon+eric+holder&aq=f&oq=

Also I can tell that the results you posted are complete and utter garbage, because Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the US Senate and Joe Biden isn't far behind. He isn't remotely conservative, most of what he's for is completely opposite of the conservative platform.

Further you can tell it is completely inaccurate because it is painting John McCain to be a far right nutcase which he obviously isn't.


Uh, in this post (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2557372&postcount=42), you said that you wanted Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State. So which one is it?

I got to thinking after I made that post as to what motive Obama would have for appointing Hillary to that position and it could be an attempt to get her knocked out of the senate to get another far left loon appointed to take her place.

Then I also heard about some issues concerning her husband recently, but my primarily reason is due to her senate seat, I hope she rejects his appointment for that reason.

The Doctor
12-01-2008, 04:44 PM
So, if McCain had chosen Clinton for his own SecStat, it would've been an excellent example of bipartisan cabinet selection, but because Obama did it he's just trying to weed her out of the Senate and replace her with a "Left loon" which, to be perfectly honest, is a damn sight better than radical Right wingers.

GarfieldJL
12-01-2008, 04:51 PM
So, if McCain had chosen Clinton for his own SecStat, it would've been an excellent example of bipartisan cabinet selection, but because Obama did it he's just trying to weed her out of the Senate and replace her with a "Left loon" which, to be perfectly honest, is a damn sight better than radical Right wingers.

Uh McCain is a Republican and by law she'd have to be replaced by a member of her own party, plus isn't the Governor of New York a Democrat currently? So it wouldn't be as big of a deal, it's all about checks and balances.

Also you may say that now, but Eric Holder has a pretty bad reputation for wanting to institute media censorship even on the net, and it can be argued it is politically motivated.

We're potentially looking at free speech only being allowed if you're on the liberal left, I kid you not, first item on their agenda is the "fairness" doctrine also known as the censorship doctrine.

jrrtoken
12-01-2008, 04:55 PM
Also I can tell that the results you posted are complete and utter garbage, because Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the US Senate and Joe Biden isn't far behind. He isn't remotely conservative, most of what he's for is completely opposite of the conservative platform.http://cter.ed.uiuc.edu/images/mr_yuck.gif

So, the graph is now wrong, all because the definition of liberal, in your point of view, does not match the actual definition of a liberal. from the FAQ page of the PoliticalCompass.com website:
You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left ?
This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology - deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism.

In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together.

Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes ?

GarfieldJL
12-01-2008, 05:04 PM
So, the graph is now wrong, all because the definition of liberal, in your point of view, does not match the actual definition of a liberal. from the FAQ page of the PoliticalCompass.com website:

Being for abortions to the point of infantcide isn't a conservative viewpoint, being for banning guns isn't a conservative viewpoint.

Being for redistribution of wealth is a far left viewpoint.

Stem Cell research is a left wing viewpoint. (something McCain supports too)

I can go on and on, so quite frankly I don't think they inputted things in accurately concerning Obama.

Furthermore, he's appointing people that are known to be corrupt.

True_Avery
12-01-2008, 05:11 PM
Furthermore, he's appointing people that are known to be corrupt.
I would love to see an uncorrupted politician...

Again, you are using an America viewpoint of conservative and liberal. Although you probably don't care what the rest of the world thinks anyway.

jrrtoken
12-01-2008, 05:11 PM
Any proof saying that Obama truly wants to kill babies would be gleefully accepted.

GarfieldJL
12-01-2008, 07:25 PM
Any proof saying that Obama truly wants to kill babies would be gleefully accepted.

I already did that weeks ago and you couldn't believe an audio tape from the floor of the Illinois state senate. I'm not saying that he's gleefully for just going and killing babies, what I am saying is he thinks abortion is okay even if it is killing newborn infants just because they survived a botched abortion.

Jae Onasi
12-02-2008, 01:41 AM
No abortion discussion here, please. There are other threads for it. Thanks.

GarfieldJL
12-02-2008, 09:24 AM
I would love to see an uncorrupted politician...


Let me put it another way, how many politicians (attorney generals etc.) do you know of that go out of their way to get terrorists pardoned?


Again, you are using an America viewpoint of conservative and liberal. Although you probably don't care what the rest of the world thinks anyway.

Look if the rest of the world thinks Obama is conservative I am really scared of what their definition of liberal is.

jrrtoken
12-02-2008, 09:41 AM
Let me put it another way, how many politicians (attorney generals etc.) do you know of that go out of their way to get terrorists pardoned?Since when is Mark Rich a terrorist? All he was ever charged was for tax evasion and selling oil during an embargo.
Look if the rest of the world thinks Obama is conservative I am really scared of what their definition of liberal is.World's Opinion > America's Opinion. We're still using the Imperial system, they're using the Metric system. Everyone else has singed the Kyoto Protocol, America still hasn't. Obviously, I'd rather agree with everyone else from around the world than just from one country.

GarfieldJL
12-02-2008, 10:02 AM
Since when is Mark Rich a terrorist? All he was ever charged was for tax evasion and selling oil during an embargo.


I believe I also pointed out that Eric Holder was behind the pardoning of Puerto Rican terrorists...


World's Opinion > America's Opinion.


Look I really couldn't care less what the world thinks at this point and really the UN is a joke and nothing more than an apology center for Islamofascists (not referring to Moderate Muslims, I am referring to lunatics that like to send children out with bombs strapped to their chests).


We're still using the Imperial system, they're using the Metric system.

It's called the English system, and quite frankly there is something called conversion equations in a calculator. I am not going to bend over backward for the rest of the world, the United States is a sovereign country that is the most charitable country in the world.


Everyone else has singed the Kyoto Protocol, America still hasn't.

Based on what I'm reading it looks like there is a pretty good reason why we didn't and to sign it in its current form is just the height of stupidity and here's why. The Kyoto Protocol is extremely arbitrary, did you know certain countries appear to be exempt or are getting around the standards. Countries like India and China for instance.

Following the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, India maintains that the major responsibility of curbing emission rests with the developed countries, which have accumulated emissions over a long period of time. However, the U.S. and other Western nations assert that India, along with China, will account for most of the emissions in the coming decades, owing to their rapid industrialization and economic growth.
--Kyoto Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol)

Looks to be rather arbitrary to me.

Further reading: Byrd-Hagel Resolution (http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html) which passed 95-0 in the United States Senate.


Obviously, I'd rather agree with everyone else from around the world than just from one country.

Yeah so you saying that everyone that wants to annihilate the Jewish people are right and want to agree with them. The United Nations is pretty well known for condemning any action Israel takes to defend itself no matter how justified.

You want to talk about the UN being right and us wrong about Iraq, I can quite easily prove that argument to be blatently nothing more than garbage, especially when even the Secretary General's son was getting kickbacks from Saddam.

jrrtoken
12-02-2008, 12:08 PM
I believe I also pointed out that Eric Holder was behind the pardoning of Puerto Rican terrorists...Article, please.
Look I really couldn't care less what the world thinks at this point and really the UN is a joke and nothing more than an apology center for Islamofascists (not referring to Moderate Muslims, I am referring to lunatics that like to send children out with bombs strapped to their chests).OK, then let's just end the UN right now. Let's just close down the headquarters right now. Let's see how long world peace will last...
Yeah so you saying that everyone that wants to annihilate the Jewish people are right and want to agree with them. The United Nations is pretty well known for condemning any action Israel takes to defend itself no matter how justified.
*yoink*

Please provide the article that states that France, Germany, the UK, China, Russia, Italy, and every other nation in the world wants to nuke Israel.

GarfieldJL
12-02-2008, 05:59 PM
Article, please.

On which subject the Marc Rich one or the FALN Terrorists?

Marc Rich: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/20/justice-nominee-guided-rich-pardon-95730754/

Oh found a list of items and page 4 is of particular interest.

“Victims were unable to get meetings with the White House or Department of Justice,” the report said. “Some had tried to schedule meetings; they were simply rebuffed. Activists seeking clemency did get such meetings.”--aclj.org (http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/HolderReport2.pdf)

Oh and the left wing media is trying to bury the information, you're going to be hard pressed to find information on it from the Mainstream Media.


OK, then let's just end the UN right now. Let's just close down the headquarters right now. Let's see how long world peace will last...


In case you haven't noticed it already looks like the world is heading for war and it looks like it will involve Russia.


Please provide the article that states that France, Germany, the UK, China, Russia, Italy, and every other nation in the world wants to nuke Israel.

Not referring to the UK... But it is relatively easy to nail the UN on their attempts to condemn Israel, look at the 2006 Israeli/Lebanon war. There was one incident in particular I think the Canadian people hopefully will remember. I'll have to dig up the report and see if I can find it.

There are some other things:
Since 1961, Israel has been barred from the Asia regional group. In 2000, it was accepted within the WEOG group. The UNRWA has been accused of perpetuating the plight of Palestinian refugees. Although the UN condemns antisemitism, it has been accused of tolerating antisemitic remarks within its walls. Some argue that disproportional criticism of Israel constitutes a new form of antisemitism. [u]UN personnel have been accused of participating directly in the armed conflict on several occasions. --wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations)

Another article specifically on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestinians,_and_the_United_Nations

With audio apparently.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21786_Canadian_General-_UN_Observer_Post_Used_By_Hizballah&only

Web Rider
12-02-2008, 10:12 PM
It'd be nice if the UN roundly condemned all bad actions by any nation or group that did something bad, but lets face it, the UN is not a military organization, and a condemnation without any action to back it up is pretty weak regardless of who says it.

GarfieldJL
12-03-2008, 10:29 AM
It'd be nice if the UN roundly condemned all bad actions by any nation or group that did something bad, but lets face it, the UN is not a military organization, and a condemnation without any action to back it up is pretty weak regardless of who says it.

That explains why they just target the United States and Israel and ignore situations like what we see in China, Sudan, Syria, Iran, and other countries...

No it goes beyond that, the General Assembly of the UN would be celebrating if the Jewish people were annihilated.

The situation I'm bringing up to demonstrate how the UN tried to set up Israel to get that country hit with sanctions among other things proves it.

littlegreenfootballs may be a blogger but this is concerning the incident where this blogger caught reuters, BBC, CNN, Associated Press, etc. in the act where they were using doctored photos and completely humiliated all of the afore mentioned news organizations.


Fact is, we have Obama appointing someone as Attorney General that secured Pardons for a traitor, terrorists (some even from Weather Underground (remember Bill Ayers)), etc. How many dots does it take before it is no longer coincidence?

mur'phon
12-03-2008, 11:05 AM
In case you haven't noticed it already looks like the world is heading for war and it looks like it will involve Russia.


Hardly, even Vlad knows Russia isn't able to defeat a beefy European country, never mind the U.S.

Not referring to the UK... But it is relatively easy to nail the UN on their attempts to condemn Israel, look at the 2006 Israeli/Lebanon war.


I see nothing wrong with the UN condemning Israel, though I wish they'd condemn other deserving countries more often than they tend to.

No it goes beyond that, the General Assembly of the UN would be celebrating if the Jewish people were annihilated.

Serious? y/n/m?

The situation I'm bringing up to demonstrate how the UN tried to set up Israel to get that country hit with sanctions among other things proves it.

Yes, many of its members want to get it, it is understandable, though I disagree with many of their reasons for doing it. In my oppinion, Israel deserves sanctions, though it's a pity that it's one of the few countries the UN might be able to place sanctions on.

Jae Onasi
12-03-2008, 01:37 PM
If you'd like to dicuss pardons, it might be better to start a new thread for that. :) I think it will make for some interesting discussion.

In this case when it has to do with Obama's appointees, I must respectfully disagree, and here's why.


You can disagree all you want--if you want to go off on a tangent and discuss pardons as an issue itself rather than the Obama cabinet, do it in another thread or your posts WILL get moderated. Neither jonathan7 nor I are going to argue moderation decisions with you or anyone else, especially in a thread. Questioning this moderation decision is not up for further discussion.

Quite frankly she should stay in the Senate, he's offering her the position so she'll be replaced. Fact is that her husband's financial connections could undercut her work as Secretary of State.I'm sure that's occurred to the Obama team. She has the drive, political savvy, and contacts that few others have. There aren't too many others who could equal what she brings to the table.

Which doesn't do any good because Obama wants to pull out regardless of the consequences....
His campaign promise was to pull them out regardless. Wasn't Rumsfeld's drawing down troops too soon a contributor of the mess that we needed the troop surge to fix.Obama emphasized combat troops, not support troops. I think he's intelligent enough to listen to the SecDef and the Joint Chiefs to alter any decisions as needed. I don't think he would have kept Gates on as SecDef if he planned to blow off Gates' advice. Rumsfeld wasn't a good SecDef, period. The problem wasn't drawing down troops too soon, it was that they moved so fast to Baghdad that they didn't adequately secure the areas they'd taken on the way, and all those weapons stayed in the civilian population to be used by insurgents. However that's an argument for the Iraq war discussions.

Then why is he planning to gut the budget that the Military has to work with.Well, I haven't seen his budget plans, have you? Unless you have some inside information the rest of us don't have (bloggers don't count), we have no idea what he's going to do with the military budget yet.


He's the man that got all those people pardoned during Clinton's last hours in office. You can do a google search and find a ton of articles on this guy.President Bill Clinton pardoned those people, not Holden. Let's be clear on that. Holden couldn't do squat if Clinton hadn't pardoned them--the buck stopped with Clinton, not Holden. Saying 'Holden pardoned these people so he shouldn't be AG' is invalid since Holden wasn't the one who pardoned these people in the first place.