 
Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 6:15 pm: |    |
quote:Yesterday, President Obama violated the Posse Comitatus Act by sending troops into Samson, Alabama to do police work.
Assuming there was an extreme safety issue at hand, what specific alternative actions should have been taken instead? And by whom? What were all the factors and details involved? |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19351
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:36 pm: | |
Ummm?? Sending police instead of troops?? |
Gibran
Member
Username: Gibran
Post Number: 4591
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:55 pm: | |
Samson is located in Alabama. In Samson, AL, there are about two thousand, seventy-one citizens. In Samson, AL, there are eight hundred and ninety-four households. There are really good schools. The median income for a household is eighteen thousand, five hundred and ninety-four dollars. There are 963 males and 1,108 females in Samson, AL.
1. maybe they needed a little help, quickly...
2. who asked for the help...
3. how can they rapidly assemble the safest intervention... I am no expert by far when it comes to the Posse Comitatus Act issues other than in times of disasters the army has helped ( ie OKC). But if you want to respond to the conspiracy theorist these are big doings...maybe a little caution to judge until all the facts are present...
we don't know what the capablity of the locals were. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19359
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:58 pm: | |
Did they try legal options first? |
Gibran
Member
Username: Gibran
Post Number: 4592
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 10:08 pm: | |
well; thats the million dollar question..maybe someone has all the besides the sites that i found when i googled this. |
Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz
Post Number: 6783
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 10:11 pm: | |
Beware searching for news results with "Samson, Alabama." There are currently some security probes out there exploiting searches for those terms.
A specific link would have helped more than just dropping the terms, Oladub.
(Message edited by Jimaz on March 11, 2009) |
Mama_jackson
Member
Username: Mama_jackson
Post Number: 503
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 11:39 pm: | |
Calm? Right. Everybody thinks he's Mr. Cool.
http://videocafe.crooksandliar s.com/heather/saturday-night-l ive-the-rock-obama |
Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub
Post Number: 1298
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 12:36 am: | |
In the '67 Detroit riots, the guard and the 84th airborn were brought in. But the army in Samson, Alabama after the perpetrator was dead? That seems like overkill and is supposed to be the job of police.
The link is found here in the OP. https://www.kitcomm.com/showth read.php?t=37399 One of the follow up posters confirmed it. Another wrote, "Posse Comitatus doesn't exist anymore ... it was overturned by the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 , at the urging of the previous administration." I didn't know that. He later added, "Correction : the wording of the John Warner Defense Act of 2007
"The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."
... was removed in 2008 , still , a precedent was set. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19374
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 8:18 pm: | |
Yep...he is calmly tearing the fabric of our country apart. Commendable trait? |
Gibran
Member
Username: Gibran
Post Number: 4594
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 8:43 pm: | |
yes he is tearing apart the fabric of greed prejudice and the bastions of extremist capitalism, and replacing it with leadership, understanding of the poor and God Forbid a new approach to resolving problems..to bad the guys that shreaded our consititution didn't have a needle. |
Flanders_field
Member
Username: Flanders_field
Post Number: 1795
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:07 pm: | |
quote:Yep...he is calmly tearing the fabric of our country apart. Commendable trait?
Tearing the fabric of what objectivists want the country to be like. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19415
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 10:40 am: | |
Yes. And what all Americans should want it to be like. |
Flanders_field
Member
Username: Flanders_field
Post Number: 1804
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 3:25 pm: | |
^^^Too bad that the serf/Lord societal relationship disappeared after the middle ages, as it appears that a modern 21st century version is what objectivists are really seeking, and desire to model our society after, here in the US. |
Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 6:17 pm: | |
Rich Lowry slobbers over President Obama's processing skills. Lowry alludes to the presidential signing statements that President Obama claims undoes corresponding Bush abuses. Lowry calls President Obama undoing Bush's efforts as simple continuity of more of the same. Problem with Lowry's assertions may be that President Obama does that which Bush would not (idea deficit) and could not (skill deficit) do.
http://article.nationalreview. com/?q=OTFkNjhkNzYwNmExZWZlYzc yOWIzZTg0NTBkZDMwOTg= |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2264
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 10:34 am: | |
In response to a Justice Dept. court filing, Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, takes the Administration to task in a press release for immediate distribution:
quote:"It is deeply troubling that the Justice Department continues to use an overly broad interpretation of the laws of war that would permit military detention of individuals who were picked up far from an actual battlefield or who didn't engage in hostilities against the United States." (source)
A flashback from the days of the GWB Administration? No, it was issued on Friday, March 13, 2009 and the ASLU is "deeply troubled" by President Obama's Justice Department.
Barack Obama, March 12, 2007:
quote:"The biggest enemy I think we have in this whole process (and why I'm so glad to see a lot of young people here, young in spirit if not young in age) -- the reason I think it's so important, is because one of the enemies we have to fight -- it's not just terrorists, it's not just Hezbollah, it's not just Hamas -- it's also cynicism"
Barack Obama, June 12, 2008:
quote:"We will lead in the observance of human rights, and the rule of law, and civil rights and due process, which is why I will close Guantánamo and I will restore habeas corpus and say no to torture. Because if you elect me, you will have elected a president who has taught the Constitution, who believes in the Constitution, and who will restore and obey the Constitution of the United States of America."
What was the old accusation used against GWB, something like "by waging his 'war on terror', he was surely creating millions more terrorists"?
Well, by waging his "war on cynicism" now that he has been elected, President Obama must surely be creating millions more cynics throughout this great nation of ours. |
20043_stotter
Member
Username: 20043_stotter
Post Number: 831
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 2:41 pm: | |
Don't count on it. He's in for 8 years, so get used to it. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19422
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 3:28 pm: | |
Serf-lord? You have no understanding of objectivism whatsoever.
THE CORE PRINCIPLE is that the individual owns his/her abilities and thoughts and should neither surrender them, or take them from another individual. No lords and no serfs, no discrimination. |
Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni
Post Number: 1417
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 4:21 pm: | |
quote:... by waging his "war on cynicism" now that he has been elected, President Obama ...
Has President Obama specifically and literally phrased the term "war on cynicism"? Cynicism as an enemy in that particular context President Obama used it in did not mean a "war on cynicism".
quote:... President Obama must surely be creating millions more cynics throughout this great nation of ours.
"must surely" is an assumptive phrase.
Ongoing domestic cynicism directed at any terrorism against the United States expectantly preexisted. Differently, some amount of domestic cynicism specifically directed at the developing Obama administration policies on terrorism is to be expected along the way. It is part of America's introspective struggle to develop and ultimately implement a well designed comprehensive infrastructure for managing the perpetual threat of terrorism of any kind. Call it the beginnings of "taking the high road" if you like. In this context, sometimes the "enemy" is our own insufficient methodologies. |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2265
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 10:05 pm: | |
quote:Ongoing domestic cynicism directed at any terrorism against the United States expectantly preexisted. Differently, some amount of domestic cynicism specifically directed at the developing Obama administration policies on terrorism is to be expected along the way. It is part of America's introspective struggle to develop and ultimately implement a well designed comprehensive infrastructure for managing the perpetual threat of terrorism of any kind. Call it the beginnings of "taking the high road" if you like. In this context, sometimes the "enemy" is our own insufficient methodologies.
Huh?
Does all that high-falutin' mumbo-jumbo mean you agree with President Obama that:
a) even though they won't call them by that phrase, his administration will continue GWB's policies regarding "enemy combatants",
b) cynicism is an important enemy to be fought just as seriously as terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas? |
20043_stotter
Member
Username: 20043_stotter
Post Number: 833
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:06 am: | |
Are you the new "Bobbin'?" There are 3 candidates now. Good luck. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19443
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:12 am: | |
Now that Obama is in, he is looking to take ownership of our efforts in defense.
IOW, liberals are not antiwar, or pacificists. They are anti...the other guys' (other party's) war. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 7891
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:18 am: | |
quote:Now that Obama is in, he is looking to take ownership of our efforts in defense.
Little surprise for you, he is Commander-in-Chief, therefore, it is his job. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19449
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:19 am: | |
Yes, this is true. However, he could have reversed everything as he promised his fellow libs he would.
Why do you suppose he isn't? |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 7892
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:24 am: | |
Please list his "promises".
According to your own words,you've made the allegations, it is incumbent upon you to provide verifiable proof. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19453
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:28 am: | |
Out of Iraq (in how many months?), Catching Osama, success in Afghanistan, going into Pakistan if necessary. These are just a few of the military promises (since we are on the subject).
There are scores of others in different arenas, but this should suffice for this topic. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 7893
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:34 am: | |
You seem to have forgotten that all of these "promises" would be at the advisment of those with their boots on the ground.
He has always stated a pragmatic approach is what was needed. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19458
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:35 am: | |
Waffles anyone? |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 7894
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:50 am: | |
Yeppers, always best to predetermine the path and ignore any new data that might change a timeline.
We had 8 years of that and where are we now? |
Flanders_field
Member
Username: Flanders_field
Post Number: 1808
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 1:37 am: | |
Regardless of what President Obama has to do militarily, because of how badly his predecessor fucked the duck, it is likely head and shoulders better than what a senile McNapoleon administration would have done instead.
The juvenile delinquent brat duo of Chimpy and Cheney whacked at the proverbial Islamic hornets' nests with sticks for years, and then left the angry swarms for the adults to deal with.
The evil Dickhead himself had the nerve to go on TV yesterday morning and accuse President Obama of endangering the country??
Fuck off Cheney, along with all the corrupt corporations that you arranged no-bid contracts for as the VP. You and your marionette Bush have a very special eternal reservation waiting in your names with your butt buddies Saddam and Osama in the deepest bowels of Hades.
(Message edited by Flanders_field on March 16, 2009) |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2267
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 7:39 am: | |
quote:He has always stated a pragmatic approach is what was needed.
I somehow missed the "Obama for Pragmatic Change" tee shirts, yard signs and bumper stickers.
All I read here are lame attempts to defend the President and no appetite at all to justify, or even acknowledge, the yawning gap between his record and his many promises of change. It's so much easier to just dash off an expletive-laden screed against Bush-Cheney, isn't it? Tell me Flanders, do you feel any better after writing moronic drivel like that? |
Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 05-2007
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 6:16 pm: | |
quote:Does ... that ... mean you agree with President Obama that:
a) even though they won't call them by that phrase, his administration will continue GWB's policies regarding "enemy combatants",
b) cynicism is an important enemy to be fought just as seriously as terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas?
a) No. Over time and after comprehensive review, some or all of GWBs policies regarding "enemy combatants" will be changed.
b) At least two distinctions can be made regarding cynicism in this discussion.
b1) American cynicism toward terrorists in response to an act of terrorism against the US. Basically, any terrorism against the US will generate some amount of cynicism in Americans. This particular cynicism has existed for years, ever since the first act of terrorism occured against the US. Therefore "Ongoing domestic cynicism directed at any terrorism against the United States expectantly preexisted."
b2) American (or even foriegn) cynicism toward the Obama Administration's direction on countering terrorism. This has existed ever since the Obama Administration began developing policies on terrorism. Therefore "Differently, some amount of domestic cynicism specifically directed at the developing Obama administration policies on terrorism is to be expected along the way."
Cynicism is a contemptous reaction to circumstances. If ill-placed or irrational, cynicism itself becomes a type of "enemy" to the harborers of that cynicism. In that case, the cynicism itself (not the persons, but the behaviour in the persons) should be quelled, or "fought" if you like. |
Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub
Post Number: 1320
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 7:05 pm: | |
Mikeg, "Imagine that last fall before being elected, Barack Obama had outlined the positions he has embraced since being inaugurated as president. An honest campaign speech could have gone something like this" —
...continued at- http://www.washingtontimes.com /news/2009/mar/15/maxing-out-a -crisis-card/ |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19466
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 10:52 pm: | |
Jams...if that is the style of governing, fine. Just keep the trap shut so you don't constantly end up contradicting yourself and come off as a pathologic liar. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8713
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 9:07 am: | |
So, let me get this straight in the context of both bats & jams comments -
someone who changes their mind on something based on new facts they may not have previously had access to comes off as a pathological liar? perhaps to the pathologically stupid, but not to the rest of us |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4575
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 9:36 am: | |
quote:someone who changes their mind on something based on new facts they may not have previously had access to comes off as a pathological liar? perhaps to the pathologically stupid, but not to the rest of us
But see, if you change your mind, even in the light of new information, that just conflicts with the theory of Rightness of Opinion. And we can't have people running the country who don't have all the answers, lest they look weak to the terrorists. |
20043_stotter
Member
Username: 20043_stotter
Post Number: 835
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 10:24 am: | |
Danindc, Pathologically Stupid, that's a good good one for Batty. Kaa-Ching. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19508
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 4:41 pm: | |
No change of mind is operative here for Obama. Politically expedient promises that he knew all along were impractical. So, what is the solution? Lie, lie, and lie some more. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8716
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 4:49 pm: | |
sorry, bats, but you won't find one time where he made promises without caveats unless you strip them entirely out of their context |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19516
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 4:52 pm: | |
Agreed, his way of saying nothing at all.
Still apologizing? |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19517
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 4:53 pm: | |
At least it is better than always voting "present". |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8719
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 4:58 pm: | |
yes, i'm sorry you are always wrong and never able to actually provide meaningful dialog |
20043_stotter
Member
Username: 20043_stotter
Post Number: 837
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 6:42 pm: | |
RB, Isn't that a trait of Rush's Dittoheads? |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 7908
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 7:30 pm: | |
Let's examine a few moments of time in Batsonia:
quote:Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19508
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 4:41 pm:
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------
No change of mind is operative here for Obama. Politically expedient promises that he knew all along were impractical. So, what is the solution? Lie, lie, and lie some more.
11 minutes later:
quote:Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19516
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 4:52 pm:
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------
Agreed, his way of saying nothing at all.
Still apologizing?
Well, which is it? |
Detroitej72
Member
Username: Detroitej72
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 7:49 pm: | |
Contridiction is SOP with the neo-cons. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19533
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 4:26 pm: | |
Jams...where is the contradiction that you are pointing out? |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19534
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 4:29 pm: | |
The comments were in reference to 2 different things, then you took them out of context.
In the first, I was saying that he (Obama) didn't really change his mind, he was just lying.
In the second, I was responding to the comment made that Obama qualified his words. I agreed and pointed out that this is a method of evasion (and deception) where the end result is that Obama commits to nothing...like voting "present" in the process. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 8728
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 4:47 pm: | |
no, bats, they were not. your second comment was a response to a comment about your first comment |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 7911
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 6:19 pm: | |
quote:In the first, I was saying that he (Obama) didn't really change his mind, he was just lying.
In the second, I was responding to the comment made that Obama qualified his words. I agreed and pointed out that this is a method of evasion (and deception) where the end result is that Obama commits to nothing...like voting "present" in the process.
Question still stands, He is either lying or commits to nothing, which is it? |
Gibran
Member
Username: Gibran
Post Number: 4606
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 9:37 pm: | |
if he lied no one died...if he was changing his mind that is his right...if he leading our country out of the mess that we are in that's his job...if people could do better than they should have run and won...if we should give this time to work out depsite the repubicans lackof a plan( still waiting for on efrom them to come forth) than that's what we should do... |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2286
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 20, 2009 - 8:55 am: | |
"it was like the Special Olympics, or something."
Was that the calm Obama or the foot-in-mouth Biden who showed up on last night's Tonight Show?
Only someone who is blind to his own arrogance would attempt to make a humorous, self-deprecating remark at the expense of others, particularly those who are less-fortunate. |
Firstandten
Member
Username: Firstandten
Post Number: 788
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 20, 2009 - 11:30 am: | |
"Only someone who is blind to his own arrogance would attempt to make a humorous, self-deprecating remark at the expense of others, particularly those who are less-fortunate."
For someone who has to speak to people in public forums as much as he does and in various formats its a wonder that he doesn't make more gaffes
The key is he called the special olympics guy before the program even aired and apologized.
The Special Olympics participants will most likely get to visit the WH and hang out with the Pres as a result of getting this unexpected publicity. In the end all is well. |
Firstandten
Member
Username: Firstandten
Post Number: 789
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 20, 2009 - 12:06 pm: | |
"I was responding to the comment made that Obama qualified his words. I agreed and pointed out that this is a method of evasion (and deception) where the end result is that Obama commits to nothing...like voting "present" in the process"
Bats you call it evasion, I call it playing his cards close to the vest. Obama knows what he wants to do he just isn't giving folks the details until he's ready to do it.
Obama knows the right wing talkers and bloggers are brutal just ready to take one word or sentence out of context (thats if he's lucky, usually they outright lie).
Voting present was a strategy he used to keep from spending all of his time during the campaign responding to lies and distortions that he knew would result by him running for president. The downside was that it didn't give him a body of work as a senator which lead to the inexperience charges. The upside was that it kept his campaign on point and kept him focused.
I read statements that while the Republicans plays checkers Obama plays chess. I wouldn't doubt that statement at all. |
20043_stotter
Member
Username: 20043_stotter
Post Number: 846
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Friday, March 20, 2009 - 3:57 pm: | |
Mikeg, Too bad your going to have to bite, the next 8 years.  |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 19546
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 20, 2009 - 5:40 pm: | |
Call it what you like, many will see through his "playing it close to the vest" over the next 4 years. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.