Obama: The New George Bush

[Decyferon]

I can run off a huge list here but here you go: How many presidents do you know hire an entire environmental advisory comittee made up of founders of the most prominent environmental community programs in the nation, many of which have set the standard for the world and put tens of billions of dollars towards renewable energy/"green collar jobs" development. He's also created an entire office of urban policy in the whitehouse that is aimed at help our struggling inner cities. Or what about his sweeping credit reform? That's something that should've been done at least 3 years ago. Or unlike bush who just gave companies billions of dollars and never saw a return, Obama's forcing companies like GM and Chrysler to bend to the will of the growing "green-chique" market instead of building gas guzzlers that never sell? Or what about the reforms to healthcare he's already made including developing a computer databank so we have actual data about our nation's health? Or what about his huge efforts to help america's image in foreign muslim countries? Or the 2 million acres of newly conserved land, the biggest land conservation project in 15 years?

 

Or what about looking at him personally? The man graduated from harvard law school second in his class. Bush was a D student. Palin had to go to five different colleges before obtaining a single degree.

 

completely spot on Soup, I can't see how people can have an issue with Obama looking at things like this, so he is trying to improve things for the poorest people, BRILLIANT America is one of the richest countries in the world but also has a stupid amount of Poverty.

 

Enviromentally, America is a huge offender, and guess what? that affects the whole world. I am glad he is focussing on this rather than George Bush who buried his head in his private wars.

 

ALso as I have said before, I cannot express how much Obama has changed the world's opinion of America. With George Bush in power you were a laughing stock, you had a hillbilly redneck warmonger who was a fuckign idiot in power, and you voted him in. Obama is a great speak, has motivated a whole generation of young people to do something different.

 

America really needs to clean it house of all these old republicans and democrats in the houses and get rid of them and get more youth and vibrance into its politics rather than all these old goats who wouldn't want change if their incontinence pads needed changing.

[R@ndomH3ro]

Obama is not really the change that we need though.

His effort to “green” the US is just a plan to tax the shit out of us and pay for somewhat inefficient technology.

 

The idea is good but the way he is executing is fucked.

 

As so far as his policy to the poor, it’s the same thing. A little too late and mostly it is just a bail to big banks and foreign interests.

 

Really it’s more of the same, his "hope" is really just the same bad concept of good ideas that will really hurt more than help and even...dare I say it, take away some natural liberties that we Americans used to have

[Decyferon]

I agree he needs to execute his plans better, but it isn't just down to him, ideas have to watered down so the bills get passed, at which point they are nothing but rehashed old ideas that have failed and continue to fail.

 

I like the ideas we have here, SUV drivers pay higher road tax than smaller cars, car emissions play a part in taxing of vehicles, you have low emissions you pay les tax, you have big gas guzzlers (like most of America because American car companies like ineffcient V8s etc) they you pay more. I can't even see how there would be an issue with that.

[angelofdeath]

If you knew about obama, you'd talk about obama, but instead you're throing out snapple facts from the 1800's and early 20th century, so how much do you really know?

 

how much do i really know?

 

i know he promised to bring the troops home, first thing on his presidential agenda, and even said...'you can take that to the bank!" do you need a video of this or other forms of cites or documentation? (as you seem to always want) and has continued and extended the very same foreign policy that you people used to criticize bush for.

he favors nationalizing various industries, continued intervention into the economy, bail outs, national make work projects that are based on economic fallacy, favored a civilian universal service force during his campaign (conscription), favors nationalizing health insurance and taking american from a horrible fascist health care system to a horrible socialized system, signed an executive order saying that gitmo would be shut down in a year, but its still open, i havent seen obama refusing to enforce the patriot act or military commissions act, he put forth rhetoric that he wanted to shut down a news outlet, he has put members on his cabinet and elected 'czars' who disregard the constitution in every manner, including one that favors civilians not owning firearms. other than this, he simply favors continuing the welfare warfare state and expanding every angle of it he can. increasing the size and scope, regulatory powers and police powers over the american populace.

 

has he talked about increasing american's individual liberties? no. has he supported repeal of any horrible legislation? no. has he sought to abolish the IRS? no. has he sought to give americans monetary freedom and stop monetary inflation by abolishing the FED? no. has he released all federal prisoners in prison for committing 'non crime' victimless crimes? no. has he recommended the abolition of any unconstitutional department, agency or bureaucracy? no. has he in any way supported any policy that would give americans back any of their lost freedom and allow them to regain control of their lives? no.

 

what good is he?

he is the same as a bush. the same as a clinton. a die hard supporter of the central state till the end. no if's and's or but's.

but simply because he is not bush and because he is black and graduated second in his class at harvard instead of an 'idiot, redneck hick' with the same policies.... he is some how much more qualified, and a much better president even though there is no change, they support the same polices, there is no 'hope,' there is no roll back of the central state in favor of liberty.

 

long live the unclothed emperor

[angelofdeath]

I agree he needs to execute his plans better, but it isn't just down to him, ideas have to watered down so the bills get passed, at which point they are nothing but rehashed old ideas that have failed and continue to fail.

 

I like the ideas we have here, SUV drivers pay higher road tax than smaller cars, car emissions play a part in taxing of vehicles, you have low emissions you pay les tax, you have big gas guzzlers (like most of America because American car companies like ineffcient V8s etc) they you pay more. I can't even see how there would be an issue with that.

 

more silly defense of the unclothed emperor. have you ever heard the story called the 'emperor has no clothes?'

you guys remind me of that story.

 

instead of offering apology after apology, why not concentrate on the things he CAN do. since congress or the president has no authority to initiate any 'green' programs or health care... why not let obama engage in his executive duties. he could end the war with the snap of his fingers. he could close down all secret prisons with the snap of his fingers. he could essentially negate any civil liberty infringing legislation simply by not enforcing it and announcing this to the entire country. he could say...'since im a constitutional lawyer and have studied such matters and whereas the federal government has no authority to infringe on the natural liberties of the american people i will cease to enforce all federal drug and gun laws for starters. i will refuse to support the unconstitutional and immoral patriot acts and military commissions acts. etc etc"

he made promises about all of this stuff, yet he has only given it lip service and increased over seas military presence.

[Decyferon]

AOD, he is a politician of course he won't roll back the central state. America is not an island on it's own, it is a world power, therefore its policies need to look at the global issues as well as domestic. That was not a concern of the founding fathers because the economy of the world wasn'tlike how it is now.

 

He cannot just pull out the troops from the middle east with a snap of his fingers because that area of the world would descend into chaos and America has too much vested interests and needs from that area of the world, mainly oil and Americas support of Israel.

 

As for your facist healthcare system, why would anyone want to have major corporations controlling your health, they have no interest in your health, jst your money, a socialised system at least tries to treat people no matter what.

 

As for your arguements against regulation, I don't trust big business enough to allow it to go unchecked, if business had proven at any point in time that they were actually looking to do good by the consumer then fair enough, but they haven't. To allow them to go unregulated would be to the deteriment of everyone. You won't agree, I know but that is how it is in the real world.

 

As for getting rid of the Fed and the IRS, never gonna happen, never promised it so I don't even see where those comments come from, apart from your continued issues with these departments being somehow illegal.

 

You live in one of the most free countries in the world, I really don't see what more you could possibly want. There are certainly things he should address, the 3 strikes prison rule for one, that is a fucking stupid law, you have one of the worst justice system records in the world, worse than China. Do I think that he should release people who have commited 'victimless' crimes? It depends on what the crime was.

[Decyferon]

more silly defense of the unclothed emperor. have you ever heard the story called the 'emperor has no clothes?'

you guys remind me of that story.

 

instead of offering apology after apology, why not concentrate on the things he CAN do. since congress or the president has no authority to initiate any 'green' programs or health care... why not let obama engage in his executive duties. he could end the war with the snap of his fingers. he could close down all secret prisons with the snap of his fingers. he could essentially negate any civil liberty infringing legislation simply by not enforcing it and announcing this to the entire country. he could say...'since im a constitutional lawyer and have studied such matters and whereas the federal government has no authority to infringe on the natural liberties of the american people i will cease to enforce all federal drug and gun laws for starters. i will refuse to support the unconstitutional and immoral patriot acts and military commissions acts. etc etc"

he made promises about all of this stuff, yet he has only given it lip service and increased over seas military presence.

 

No he doesn't have that authority on his own. He has the senate and all that bullshit to deal with. His word is not final, bills need to be passed, people disagree they stop things changing. Rather than blame Obama, blame every politician that stands inthe way of these changes being put in place.

 

I agree secret prisons, Gitmo and the use of torture need to be stopped. HE needs to make examples of the men that do this, they need to be imprisoned. Gitmo prisoners need to be tried in the Justice system of America and NOT in military courts, to try them in military courts makes out that they are enemy combatants when they are just criminals. They give legitamacy to their crimes as acts of war by using military courts and not the normal courts of criminals.

[angelofdeath]

He cannot just pull out the troops from the middle east with a snap of his fingers because that area of the world would descend into chaos and America has too much vested interests and needs from that area of the world, mainly oil and Americas support of Israel.

 

campaign promise. he said he was going to...

 

As for your facist healthcare system, why would anyone want to have major corporations controlling your health, they have no interest in your health, jst your money, a socialised system at least tries to treat people no matter what.

 

even though your analysis is based on marxian class warfare rhetoric, i dont want major corporations controlling my health anymore than i want a tyrannical government controlling my health.

 

As for getting rid of the Fed and the IRS, never gonna happen, never promised it so I don't even see where those comments come from, apart from your continued issues with these departments being somehow illegal.

 

i never said he promised it, but if obama was really trying to 'help the poor' and all that... he would get rid of things that hurt the poor. like the FED, the minimum wage laws, etc.

[angelofdeath]

No he doesn't have that authority on his own. He has the senate and all that bullshit to deal with. His word is not final, bills need to be passed, people disagree they stop things changing. Rather than blame Obama, blame every politician that stands inthe way of these changes being put in place.

 

uh... yes he does.

there was a famous exchange a long time ago. andrew jackson essentially said...'well the supreme court has made their decision, let them enforce it.'

have you heard of checks and balances?

if congress passes a law saying that every one who posts on the internet under the name decyferon should have his left toe cut off.... the executive branch, the president as its head, is in charge of executing or enforcing this law. he could simply STAND DOWN. he could essentially follow his oath of office and refuse to enforce this atrocious law.

 

being the commander in chief of the armed forces he has all the authority to end the war with the snap of his fingers. im not getting into the argument as to strategic concerns, im merely saying he has the authority and ability to.

 

since you do not understand the constitution, hate everything about it, you do not understand this.

 

i'll heroically defend any politician who stands in the way of any sort of tyranny.

there is no check on the executive branch refusing to enforce laws enacted by the legislature.

in fact obama would become heroic in my book if he essentially nullified the patriot act or MCA06 if he refused to enforce it.

heroic.

if he ended the war on drugs by non enforcement.... he would be heroic. he essentially has this authority as the chief federal law enforcement officer and commander in chief.

 

I agree secret prisons, Gitmo and the use of torture need to be stopped. HE needs to make examples of the men that do this, they need to be imprisoned. Gitmo prisoners need to be tried in the Justice system of America and NOT in military courts, to try them in military courts makes out that they are enemy combatants when they are just criminals. They give legitamacy to their crimes as acts of war by using military courts and not the normal courts of criminals.

 

more or less, agreed

[Decyferon]

campaign promise. he said he was going to...

 

 

 

even though your analysis is based on marxian class warfare rhetoric, i dont want major corporations controlling my health anymore than i want a tyrannical government controlling my health.

 

 

 

i never said he promised it, but if obama was really trying to 'help the poor' and all that... he would get rid of things that hurt the poor. like the FED, the minimum wage laws, etc.

 

I agree he said he was going to, I can't remember the exact speech but didn't he say he was pulling troops out in 2011?

 

How would getting rid of minimum wage laws help the poor, so companies could pay them even less?

 

Also if he could just make a decision himself and it would have to happen why can't he pass his healthcare reforms because it keeps getting blocked? I'm not arguing I want to understand this point you made or does that only apply to military decisions?

[angelofdeath]

I agree he said he was going to, I can't remember the exact speech but didn't he say he was pulling troops out in 2011?

 

during a campaign speech he said the first thing he would do as president was bring the troops home.

 

 

Also if he could just make a decision himself and it would have to happen why can't he pass his healthcare reforms because it keeps getting blocked? I'm not arguing I want to understand this point you made or does that only apply to military decisions?

 

the executive branch has a handful of duties. the president is commander in chief of the armed forces. he can grant pardons. he is charged with enforcing laws and court rulings. however each branch is separate and checks the other. in theory if congress passes an unconstitutional or immoral law the president has a right and duty to not enforce it. the supreme court even ruled years ago that if a law is repugnant to the constitution it is no law at all.

 

the president has no power to pass laws. healthcare reform is a legislative act not an act of the executive. if the president could pass law we would call him a dictator not a president. the president merely has the bully pulpit and leans on congressmen and senators that agree with his agenda to push through his initiatives. congress has the power to pass laws. so the issue of healthcare, is in the hands of the congress. however, constitutionally congress has no more authority to pass national healthcare legislation than it does to pass a law cutting off the big toe of people with the screen name 'decyferon.'

 

for a better understanding what exactly congress can and cannot do.... read this:

 

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

 

those are the powers of congress.

 

that is article 1 section 8 of the US constitution.

 

the 10th amendment then reads:

 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

so for most of the US history, it was understood that congress had those powers listed and all other powers were left to the states. to make congress/feds scope broader, an amendment was passed. such as the 16th amendment which gave uncle sam the power to levy an income tax. or the amendment that prohibited sales and consumption of alcohol.

 

executive powers listed are:

 

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

 

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

 

responsibilities of the president:

 

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;

he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers;

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and

shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

 

constitutionally the federal government was to have hardly any police powers.

the only 3 federal crimes mentioned are treason, counterfeiting and piracy.

[Decyferon]

Right I get you, I think he does want to end the wars, but it would be highly irresponsible to remove all the troops without thinking of the consequences of doing that. I would rather a staggered and responsible withdraw of troops rather than a turning and running approach which will leave a volatile area even more volatile.

 

Again it isn't about just the implications for America and it's troops there a global implications to withdraw from that area, Christo-f would be able to put it in much more concise detail. I know people automatically jump to pathetic NWO style conspiracies whenever a global issue is raised but there is more at stake than just American interests, it isn't just American forces over there.

 

In respect to the first sentance of section 8:

 

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

This to me means they can tax the US citizens to be able to provide for the welfare which healthcare could be a part of that general welfare clause.

Also, why if it states they have the right to impose taxes do people claim they are not constitutionally allowed to collect taxes, seems to me it clearly states that they can, along with that 16th amendment which also seems to back that up.

[R@ndomH3ro]

He doesnt want to end wars

 

The war in Afghanistan and Iraq are wars of diplomacy and not of armed conflicts

He can easily do this

 

I agree with AOD on this one, nothing that Obama has done has helped anything

The only thing it has helped is to keep the rich richer and destroy the middle class and make us all poor

[fastZeetec302]

looks like ive got some reading to do when i get home.

[Decyferon]

He doesnt want to end wars

 

The war in Afghanistan and Iraq are wars of diplomacy and not of armed conflicts

He can easily do this

 

I agree with AOD on this one, nothing that Obama has done has helped anything

The only thing it has helped is to keep the rich richer and destroy the middle class and make us all poor

 

But at the moment there is still complete instability in these countries, if they were able to keep their own houses clean then there would be no need for any of us to be over there, yea I agree it is now a war of diplomacy however they are not ready to look after the security within their own countries. The question is will they ever? Personally I don't think they will but like I said before the wests dependancy on oil and the fact that all these oil contracts have been sold off to western companies means that our governments have a vested interest in the security of the area.

 

I don't understand the other comment, the rich always get richer it is how the world works, we are in a global recession the middle and lower classes are always the ones that suffer, I don't really think that can be blamed on Obama, he certainly didn't create this mess. He cannot force companies to recruit or give pay rises, I sometimes wish governments could because I would then be better off myself.

[angelofdeath]

This to me means they can tax the US citizens to be able to provide for the welfare which healthcare could be a part of that general welfare clause.

Also, why if it states they have the right to impose taxes do people claim they are not constitutionally allowed to collect taxes, seems to me it clearly states that they can, along with that 16th amendment which also seems to back that up.

 

then why didnt they do this when the federal government was created? why was there years of rulings that say basically 'congress has no authority to spend money on objects of benevolence?'

the federalist papers, which was the propaganda literature piece put out by proponents of the constitution explain all of this quite well.

since you seem, for once, genuinely interested in how the american constitutional system works, its easier if you just accept what im telling you as truth, unless you actually need actual citations from the men who wrote it and ratified it.

 

congress has always had the power to tax. the taxes must, pre 16th amendment, be apportioned among the states.

the articles of confederation government which defeated the british empire, the greatest super power in the world at the time, did so WITHOUT the power to tax. as patrick henry said... if that system accomplished that, it is good enough for me.

 

the income tax was always ruled unconstitutional prior to the 16th amendment. lincoln instituted an income tax during the civil war that was struck down as unconstitutional. that is why the 16th amendment was needed to legalize income taxation. the income tax was considered so tyrannical even the most statist monarchist types directly after the american revolution despised it.

 

it is fallacious to assume that taxation for the purpose of income redistribution was legitimate. it was not.

 

it is quite apparent by reading the meaning behind various constitutional provisions, that the original intent of the 'welfare clause' was simply put another way... the way in which government protects the rights and property of citizens. this was 'promoting the general welfare.' just like 'a well regulated militia' meant a 'well trained' militia. contemporary accounts all verify this.

 

which takes us back to the enumerated powers.

 

congress can only do what the constitution says and THAT IS IT.

 

mcculloch vs maryland :

 

"This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted."

[Decyferon]

my arguement was that it stated for the 'general welfare of the state' it is all down to your interpretation of that comment, I would say universal healthcare IS for the general welfare of the state. Which could then go on to argue then that it is unconstitutional to not provide this for the state (at a stretch though haha). It is a legal document they can be twisted and turned to suit your viewpoint.

 

The problem with things that are written are they are always up for interpretation, I am not denying what you are saying but I am just commenting on what that comment would mean to me. While you might say it is redistribution of wealth I can easily claim that it is general welfare of the state.

[angelofdeath]

But at the moment there is still complete instability in these countries, if they were able to keep their own houses clean then there would be no need for any of us to be over there, yea I agree it is now a war of diplomacy however they are not ready to look after the security within their own countries. The question is will they ever? Personally I don't think they will but like I said before the wests dependancy on oil and the fact that all these oil contracts have been sold off to western companies means that our governments have a vested interest in the security of the area.

 

while people all say this as a defense of the war.. they never acknowledge the instability, war crimes, atrocities, civilian deaths, that come along with the occupation! you are damned if you are there and damned if you are not. there will be 'instability' no matter what.

 

considering the US and its allies has caused serious instability, turned average people into 'insurgents' simply by our presence, etc etc... i'd say the US military presence is the major problem. not to mention the moral case that we invaded and are occupying countries that did not attack us, did not harm us, and did not want war with us.

 

do i go out and beat people up because that person might know someone who did something bad to me, then me and my buddies go shoot up his neighborhood (because the neighborhood is harboring terrorists!), occupy it and intimidate everyone? and then have the audacity to say that if i withdraw from these evil actions, it might cause 'instability?'

no, i just dont do it to begin with. if for some reason someone did act like this... they just march out they same way they marched in.

which is why, if we had leaders that followed the constitution, we would not be in a foreign war to begin with, unless there was a declaration. if there is a declaration, then we get behind it, win it, and get home just like we used to do when we declared wars. now we just call them 'police actions' and let the president do whatever he wants even though he has no authority whatsoever to be involved in a war without a congressional declaration.

[angelofdeath]

my arguement was that it stated for the 'general welfare of the state' it is all down to your interpretation of that comment, I would say universal healthcare IS for the general welfare of the state. Which could then go on to argue then that it is unconstitutional to not provide this for the state (at a stretch though haha). It is a legal document they can be twisted and turned to suit your viewpoint.

 

The problem with things that are written are they are always up for interpretation, I am not denying what you are saying but I am just commenting on what that comment would mean to me. While you might say it is redistribution of wealth I can easily claim that it is general welfare of the state.

 

i know what it would mean to you.

if it were left up to most people there would be no limit whatsoever to what the state can and cannot do.

 

even if you hold the position that the general welfare clause some how authorizes 'welfare' it still isnt an enumerated power. as pointed out... if it isnt enumerated... its unlawful for congress to engage in that behavior.

[Decyferon]

The preamble of the Constitution also lists purposes of our government’s existence: to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” These are the benefits we receive in exchange for certain responsibilities which include following and upholding the law, and paying our taxes.

 

In regard to the health care debate, we must ask whether it “establishes Justice” that 46 million people do not currently have health insurance. We must ask whether denying coverage to the sick “insures domestic Tranquility.” We must ask whether “the general Welfare” is promoted by allowing people to show up in the emergency room with costly conditions that could have been prevented. I believe the answers to these are an emphatic no, no, and no!

 

Universal health care is both a benefit and an individual responsibility that exists implicitly in the Constitution and ought to be formally defined through legislation.

 

Just read this on another website and wondered your thoughts on it AOD

[Decyferon]

while people all say this as a defense of the war.. they never acknowledge the instability, war crimes, atrocities, civilian deaths, that come along with the occupation! you are damned if you are there and damned if you are not. there will be 'instability' no matter what.

 

considering the US and its allies has caused serious instability, turned average people into 'insurgents' simply by our presence, etc etc... i'd say the US military presence is the major problem. not to mention the moral case that we invaded and are occupying countries that did not attack us, did not harm us, and did not want war with us.

 

 

Oh believe me I am not saying things have been handled well, you know me AOD, I have always said I am against these wars, I do notsupport them, however I do think that the matter is somewhat of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. But then I also see it that if we completely withdrew and allowed the power struggle that will inevitably follow we would just be creating more militant viewpoints by our go in fuck everything up and leave a horrible mess approach.

 

We have such a vested interest in the area as a whole that it isn't just as simple as leaving.

[Michael Jackson.]

fkjdj

[angelofdeath]

The preamble of the Constitution also lists purposes of our government’s existence: to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” These are the benefits we receive in exchange for certain responsibilities which include following and upholding the law, and paying our taxes.

 

In regard to the health care debate, we must ask whether it “establishes Justice” that 46 million people do not currently have health insurance. We must ask whether denying coverage to the sick “insures domestic Tranquility.” We must ask whether “the general Welfare” is promoted by allowing people to show up in the emergency room with costly conditions that could have been prevented. I believe the answers to these are an emphatic no, no, and no!

 

Universal health care is both a benefit and an individual responsibility that exists implicitly in the Constitution and ought to be formally defined through legislation.

 

Just read this on another website and wondered your thoughts on it AOD

 

word. i understand the argument but reject it flat out on constitutional grounds and the grounds of liberty. if the general welfare clause actually held lawful weight, there would be no need for a constitution. all they would need is the paper to say... 'we are the feds and we can do whatever we want.'

 

im not even necessarily against the healthcare debate taking place. a constitutional amendment is needed to give the feds jurisdiction in this matter. its just that simple. its just like a war. you have to declare it before you invade a country. otherwise its illegal. its like a search... you need a warrant before a legal search can take place without the property owners's express consent.

what needs to happen is a constitutional amendment needs to be passed to show that enough people are serious about the feds running healthcare in some manner or the other.

[angelofdeath]

decy:

 

in another thread you said you were against the .gov reading emails... check this:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

 

"In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls."

 

as others have pointed out... obama's first term is actually the third term of the bush administration

[Soup]

Obama is not really the change that we need though.

His effort to “green” the US is just a plan to tax the shit out of us and pay for somewhat inefficient technology.

 

The idea is good but the way he is executing is fucked.

 

As so far as his policy to the poor, it’s the same thing. A little too late and mostly it is just a bail to big banks and foreign interests.

 

Really it’s more of the same, his "hope" is really just the same bad concept of good ideas that will really hurt more than help and even...dare I say it, take away some natural liberties that we Americans used to have

 

Says the man in germany. No offense man but you're kinda out of the loop. Obama is not leading this green jobs movement. He's giving unprecedented physical and financial support for it. That means he's giving more power to the green community groups to do what they need to do in their own communities. If you're not seeing shit down where you're from in the states, that because where your from doesnt have a green movement yet so get moving on it.

 

Going green is not an option. The whole term gets a bit thrown around and has lost its meaning but what green means is sustainability. We currently are piling up garbage, polluting our oceans so badly that in some areas there's more plastic than plant and animal life including algae. Our fishing industry will collapse in 25 years. America is literally becoming china's landfill. Our water will not only become more scarce, but also more expensive to clean and more expensive to drink. Also water is fucking heavy, to move more water further distances will require heaps of energy which means more coal plants if renewable energy sources arent found.

 

The laws, grants, initatives for these projects will never be perfect but as they're set up currently the way Obama is going is the fastest route. It would be nice if power companies like PG&E who invested recently nearly a billion dollars in a windfarm in bakersfield could recieve some of that grant money, but they dont, yet they keep trucking on.

 

Also, coal is dirty as fuck and very inefficient. Nuclear power is worthless without uranium mining and enrichment, which makes it one of the dirtiest power sources on the planet. There are alternatives to nuclear but really we need to change our nuclear weapons program first because the real reason we use uranium for power is to build nukes in the process. Green isnt just some scheme it's imperative that we implement it now. If this whole plan looks terrible now you have to think 20-30 years down the road.

 

If you were in the bay you'd know Obama put in the stimulus package a $300,000,000 deal to train 30,000 people from impoverished innercities to install solar panels and aeroturbines, which turns into life-long careers, renewable energy, helps solve the growing air pollution and gets the ball rolling on solar pannels on every house in america by 2050. That's not a pipe dream that already happened, and there's about 7 billion dollars still left in that green jobs/renewable energy fund.

 

I'd like you all when you have the time to take a look at the Ella Baker Center in oakland since it recieves and gives a lot of support to these initiatives, review their website's information, and also look at the many hour-long discussions by Van Jones, a local civil rights activist who Obama appointed as his environmental advisor and green jobs counsler.

 

http://fora.tv/2009/02/02/Van_Jones_Green_New_Deal

 

 

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/activism_non_profit/watch/v18761981dD4FNCe8

[Lady_Sec]

Time's person of the year has nothing to do with good or bad deeds it is about influence in the year that is why he got it, I think that was said in the original thread about it.

 

As for the Nobel peace prize, to be honest I always thought that was a shit award for the simple fact is we have no peace in this world. No one deserves it.

 

 

Well said....I agree with the awkwardness of the Nobel. Seems a bit of an oxymoron.

 

Bernanke didn't put us in the place we're at anyways....greedy wallstreeters did. One person couldn't get us in the shit we're in...and one person can't get us out.

[Soup]

cant just blame wallstreeters either. What the fuck are labor workers doing buying houses 20 times their annual salary? What the fuck are college students buying for $5000 on credit cards with no job? What the fuck are banks doing giving these people with a history of bad credit house loans and credit cards? Why the fuck didnt the government regulate and reform the credit industry earlier? Why the fuck are people only pro-green when gas prices are up, then driving SUVs when they're down? We, (not just america, but the world) are a bunch of morons who only do things that are cheap and free for us now, but will cost us everything later. When you look at that, then you look at keynesian economics, then you Bernarke as a businessman, you realize that Bernarke is speaking to THE CONSUMER BEHAVIORS THAT YOU'RE ALL IN DENIAL ABOUT AND YET YOU HAPPILY PARTICIPATE. You're all at fault and a bunch of fucking Hippocrates.

 

 

Btw, this has nothing to do with Obama. There's already 3 other threads on this exact same subject. STICK TO THE TOPIC.

[ayeplus]

lame duck presidency, thats it

[R@ndomH3ro]

Says the man in germany. No offense man but you're kinda out of the loop. Obama is not leading this green jobs movement. He's giving unprecedented physical and financial support for it. That means he's giving more power to the green community groups to do what they need to do in their own communities. If you're not seeing shit down where you're from in the states, that because where your from doesnt have a green movement yet so get moving on it.

 

Going green is not an option. The whole term gets a bit thrown around and has lost its meaning but what green means is sustainability. We currently are piling up garbage, polluting our oceans so badly that in some areas there's more plastic than plant and animal life including algae. Our fishing industry will collapse in 25 years. America is literally becoming china's landfill. Our water will not only become more scarce, but also more expensive to clean and more expensive to drink. Also water is fucking heavy, to move more water further distances will require heaps of energy which means more coal plants if renewable energy sources arent found.

 

The laws, grants, initatives for these projects will never be perfect but as they're set up currently the way Obama is going is the fastest route. It would be nice if power companies like PG&E who invested recently nearly a billion dollars in a windfarm in bakersfield could recieve some of that grant money, but they dont, yet they keep trucking on.

 

Also, coal is dirty as fuck and very inefficient. Nuclear power is worthless without uranium mining and enrichment, which makes it one of the dirtiest power sources on the planet. There are alternatives to nuclear but really we need to change our nuclear weapons program first because the real reason we use uranium for power is to build nukes in the process. Green isnt just some scheme it's imperative that we implement it now. If this whole plan looks terrible now you have to think 20-30 years down the road.

 

If you were in the bay you'd know Obama put in the stimulus package a $300,000,000 deal to train 30,000 people from impoverished innercities to install solar panels and aeroturbines, which turns into life-long careers, renewable energy, helps solve the growing air pollution and gets the ball rolling on solar pannels on every house in america by 2050. That's not a pipe dream that already happened, and there's about 7 billion dollars still left in that green jobs/renewable energy fund.

 

I'd like you all when you have the time to take a look at the Ella Baker Center in oakland since it recieves and gives a lot of support to these initiatives, review their website's information, and also look at the many hour-long discussions by Van Jones, a local civil rights activist who Obama appointed as his environmental advisor and green jobs counsler.

 

http://fora.tv/2009/02/02/Van_Jones_Green_New_Deal

 

 

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/activism_non_profit/watch/v18761981dD4FNCe8

 

 

Yeah, you are right. I am out of the loop on some things but mostly I hear a lot of news and I talk to my folks in Austin. So that is all I can talk

 

Right now in Austin there is a green movement, there has been for years and it didnt have to be forced. But now the city is getting involved and starting to tax the people of Austin for "green projects" They shut down a coal plant in downtown that was efficient for the city and are starting a wind turbine project that will cost the city millions of dollars and shown in studies will not even be close to the power that they got from a coal plant that was emission certified by federal regulations. This wind turbine project will also take away from some of the natural Texas countryside and disrupt animal habitats.

 

So the city is now raising taxes to pay for this, destroying the countryside, also with the shut down of the coal plant they lost thousands of jobs. How is this better?

[Soup]

Yeah, you are right. I am out of the loop on some things but mostly I hear a lot of news and I talk to my folks in Austin. So that is all I can talk

 

Right now in Austin there is a green movement, there has been for years and it didnt have to be forced. But now the city is getting involved and starting to tax the people of Austin for "green projects" They shut down a coal plant in downtown that was efficient for the city and are starting a wind turbine project that will cost the city millions of dollars and shown in studies will not even be close to the power that they got from a coal plant that was emission certified by federal regulations. This wind turbine project will also take away from some of the natural Texas countryside and disrupt animal habitats.

 

So the city is now raising taxes to pay for this, destroying the countryside, also with the shut down of the coal plant they lost thousands of jobs. How is this better?

 

Oh hell yeah Austin itself is kind of an amazing epicenter of culture in Texas and the rest of the states. They have one of the best architectural programs in the country with a great community outreach program involving some of the poorer communities in Austin and humanitarian projects reaching out to the poorest community in Mexico (

I would actually love to go to school there). They've also had some of the most innovative and intelligent architecture designs in recent years. It doesn't surprise me that they want to be one of the first to accomplish this wind farm, but they're not moving forward because of some crazy "green" power shift. They're moving forward with wind because they have no other choice.

 

When you look at the long run (10 years), Coal really isn't an option. Austin's coal plant was ranked the 7th most polluting industrial complex in Texas. Thanks to federal legislature on carbon caps (which were placed because Americans put out more than double the C02 of any other nation, per capita) if the coal plant was allowed to stay, it would cost Texans double it costs now for energy. Even without that, the cost of coal for Austin raised 73% from 2008-2009 and operation costs were rising as well to $180 million a year. That's $1 per megawatt more than Austins renewable energy portfolio, by 2020. All that is because coal costs money to dig up, money to buy, money to transport, money to burn, and money to dispose of the waste (not including money to plant trees to displace the carbon created). It's also an incredibly hazardous job. You've got stories of people, raised by coal miners, who had their parents die to black lung, so they wanted to do something to save anyone from working in a coal mine again. They built wind farms. Its natural progression.

 

If you're worried about jobs, the number of aeroturbines needed to replace a coal plant is pretty staggering. It'll likely cost Texas more than a billion dollars. Aeroturbines are Boeing-level technology requiring the design and manufacturing of roughly 8000 parts. That's the same as a car. That alone is a lot of jobs. Then there's the guys who go out in the field and set up the grid. Then, if you're still worried about what you're being payed, consider also what you're saving. In the long run renewable energy pays for itself.

 

If all that green goodness isn't good enough for you, the fact is we can't build aeroturbines fast enough to keep up with the growing need for electricity, so there'll always be a coal plant nearby in Texas. We're just trying to reduce the number of coal plants.

 

And if you're worried about the land, The coal plant wasnt just demolishing an entire mountain for the coal, the mine and the plant were demolishing the air quality and health quality and food quality for those around it.

 

 

However, I will say this, the other problem with doing this job is that the private sector gets all the green jobs subsidies. I doubt the state's eligible for any of the grants, so you gotta raise taxes and such. Or you could let some proxy company build the aeroturbines for you and then just buy the farm. The good news is that once it's built you'll see that drop in electricity price immediately. There's nothing left to pay off.