You would be mistaken if you think that anyone who actually cares about sustainability and preservation truly considers Obama to be a "Green President", he is, however, a lot better than the alternative. If nothing else, he's a stopgap measure to prevent the rampant pillaging that would likely ensue if the tea baggers were unleashed.

3/2/2012 9:53:55 AM

seems like our refining capacity could use a boost more than anything?

3/2/2012 10:31:36 AM

wrong thread.

[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM. Reason : .]

3/2/2012 10:43:31 AM

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-budget-subsidize-10-k-each-electric-car-sold

defending him is really an exercise in futility at this point.

3/4/2012 3:48:46 PM

What the subsidy/tax break for each SUV and gallon of gas?

3/4/2012 5:34:05 PM

why not 20k subsidies.


why do they keep electric cars out of the range of 98% of consumers

seriously if you give 10k. why can't you afford 20k

if you're going to inject govt into controlling the market. why not grab it by the balls and get some shit done since we've made car buying a full matter of the state.

so fucking mysterious. electric cars will always be outside of the reach of the mainstream it seems.

[Edited on March 4, 2012 at 5:39 PM. Reason : ,]

3/4/2012 5:38:18 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/04/attorney-questions-promotion-terrorist-defender-to-head-gitmo-policy-at-justice/

Quote :

"A former Justice Department attorney who blew the whistle on his department's policies is now questioning the promotion of a former defense attorney for an American terrorist to the No. 3 spot at the Justice Department -- specifically charged with crafting U.S. policy on Guantanamo detainees. J. Christian Adams, once an elections lawyer who accused the Justice Department of racial bias in its decision to not prosecute a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party, said Tony West's promotion from assistant attorney general for the Civil Division to acting associate attorney general is one more step toward letting radicals run the Justice Department."

Shouldn't surprise anyone.

Holder's previous firm represented Gitmo guests before he was AG.

3/4/2012 7:30:55 PM

^welcome to utopia

3/4/2012 9:08:41 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/05/news/economy/national-debt-interest/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

3/5/2012 11:55:37 AM

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/report-mccain-to-call-for-air-strikes-on

Obama could spend the rest of his term playing Wii golf between bong hits, and I'd still be glad I didn't vote for McCain.

3/5/2012 3:49:49 PM

wrong thread....derp

[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 7:13 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2012 7:12:58 PM

^^ If Obama did that then I'd vote to elect him President for life. But we all know he is instead going to use his time in office causing as much damage to the country as he can. Not on purpose, obviously, but results are more important than intentions.

3/6/2012 8:07:48 AM

he loses credibility for just visiting mt holly nc tomorrow, lol

3/6/2012 4:55:56 PM

pwnt

3/6/2012 5:00:56 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57391681-503544/obama-to-gop-rivals-war-in-iran-not-a-game/

Quote :

""Now, what's said on the campaign trail -- you know, those folks don't have a lot of responsibilities. They're not commander in chief," he said. "And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I'm reminded of the costs involved in war; I'm reminded of the decision that I have to make, in terms of sending our young men and women into battle, and the impacts that has on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact it has on our economy." "This is not a game," he said. "And there's nothing casual about it.""

For all of you saying there is no difference between Romney and Obama, read this carefully.

3/6/2012 5:39:10 PM

and those of us that actually live in reality are reminded of something too:

we really think it would be cool if al qaeda / syria / hamas had access to nuclear arms.

that would be a really fun problem to solve.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 5:46 PM. Reason : -]

3/6/2012 5:45:59 PM

US Attorney General Eric Holder discussing how the President can have you killed without due process:

Quote :

"In a speech at Northwestern University yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder provided the most detailed explanation yet for why the Obama administration believes it has the authority to secretly target U.S. citizens for execution by the CIA without even charging them with a crime, notifying them of the accusations, or affording them an opportunity to respond, instead condemning them to death without a shred of transparency or judicial oversight. The administration continues to conceal the legal memorandum it obtained to justify these killings, and, as The New York Times‘ Charlie Savage noted, Holder’s “speech contained no footnotes or specific legal citations, and it fell far short of the level of detail contained in the Office of Legal Counsel memo.” But the crux of Holder’s argument as set forth in yesterday’s speech is this: Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process. When Obama officials (like Bush officials before them) refer to someone “who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces,” what they mean is this: someone the President has accused and then decreed in secret to be a Terrorist without ever proving it with evidence. The “process” used by the Obama administration to target Americans for execution-by-CIA is, as reported last October by Reuters, as follows: American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions . . . There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council . . . Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate. As Leon Panetta recently confirmed, the President makes the ultimate decision as to whether the American will be killed: “[The] President of the United States obviously reviews these cases, reviews the legal justification, and in the end says, go or no go.” ...."

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/attorney_general_holder_defends_execution_without_charges/singleton/




"The constitution guarantees due process, it does not guarantee judicial process"

-- Eric Holder



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ68KY96zKQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TDsfkYavCo



[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 3:01 AM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 2:50:33 AM

Quote :

"For all of you saying there is no difference between Romney and Obama, read this carefully."

So what you're trying to point out is that one puts on the facade of caring while the other one doesn't bother.

It absolutely stuns me that people can see him complain that others talk about war too casually and see him as anything other than a raging hypocrite.

I mean lol...isn't Obama so funny?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4

Because certainly Obama would never joke about a weapon of war that has killed hundreds of innocent civilians, right? And because Obama would never actually take out a US citizen without "due process", right? I mean, that would just be CRAZY!

...OH WAIT.

3/7/2012 6:00:28 AM

Obama bucket list

#3056

Start an abortion war to distract the coming economic apocalypse!

3/7/2012 10:16:09 AM

^^ I agree with that. Words are empty, actions are meaningful. If Obama wins and ends up not attacking Iran all we can do is speculate on what a Republican would have done. Still, talking casually about war with Iran is not very prudent even if both Dems and Repubs are working off the same platform. Anything we say over here gets amplified and negatively distorted x10 by the time Iranian citizens hear about it.

^^^ Technically, he's correct. There is no "judicial process" outlined in the Bill of Rights. Precedent has been that judicial process is typically the route taken although in times of war, that right has been suspended. Surprise, surprise... we've been in a state of perpetual war for the last 40 years which can technically allow the government to do whatever it wants as it constantly has war time privileges. I agree with his interpretation of the law, but I disagree with the law itself. Someone in Congress or the Supreme Court needs to step up and overturn/legislate a law more in spirit with the Bill of Rights. One vague word in one amendment has set off a shit storm in modern times.

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 11:56 AM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 11:51:38 AM

out of curiosity, how do you suppose that due process has occurred when no one even knows what the process is or if it has taken place at all? if only there were some body that would "hear" these situation, these "cases", if you will, and decide on them, maybe even, be a "judge" on them. what you are saying is that all the President needs to do to kill someone is to claim there has been due process, and that's all that's necessary. Or, you are at least saying that that is a legitimate legal justification, even if you don't agree with it or like it.

3/7/2012 12:34:45 PM

Did you read the rest of my post? I put my reasoning in there pretty clearly I thought. Let me explain again.

1. "Due process" is the literal word straight from the Bill of Rights. Pretty vague term, right?
2. "Due process" has traditionally (with Supreme Court precedent) meant judicial process.
3. This is not true in times of war. Certain cases were found to allow the executive branch to suppress these rights for the cause of "national security."
4. We have been in a perpetual state of war since the late 1960's.
5. This, by our current legislation and legal precedent, essentially allows the executive branch to steamroll the Constitution. Both parties are equally culpable of this.
6. Someone in Congress or the Supreme Court needs to step up to the plate and strike this out of our legal system.

What the executive branch is doing is completely legal based on the way our government has been crafted over the past 200 years. The executive branch has abused their right to determine due process by involving us in wars continuously for the past 40 years. We either need to redefine the legal interpretation of war or scrap 200 years of precedent and law to fix this problem.

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 12:47:31 PM

Stephen Colbert explains it with eloquence and humor.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/410085/march-06-2012/the-word---due-or-die?xrs=share_copy

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 1:20 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 1:19:36 PM

^^ I'd argue that the sheer absurdity of only needing to claim that due process was followed without even showing that it was followed in any way, much less there being any legal framework followed, goes to show that there is not a legally sound justification for what they are doing. It's not just one word. It's two, and the second word is "process." That implies some methodology upon which there has been agreement of some sort, whether it be a law or a judicial proceeding. As it stands, it's the equivalent of saying "Let there be some magic guy in the sky" and said magic guy in the sky is automatically willed into existence.

I see what you are trying to say, that it is legally justified and you disagree with it and it should be taken care of, but I just simply don't think it's even legally justified.

3/7/2012 1:29:15 PM

Quote :

"It's two, and the second word is "process." That implies some methodology upon which there has been agreement of some sort, whether it be a law or a judicial proceeding."

You just kind of answered your own question right there. There is some process. It's just that the process is total bullshit.

Well in the past, specifically during the Civil War and WWI (Alien and Sedition Acts etc), the executive branch has been ceded power to determine due process in an effort to expedite hearings on war criminals. I'm sure the politicians and judges who allowed this precedent to exist had no idea that this law would be bastardized into the form it currently exists. Whether you personally believe there is legal justification to execute due process without a trial means little. The framework exists and there is legal consensus on the interpretation of its current implementation. I believe many professional lawyers who agree on this interpretation disagree with its sentiment as well. In my opinion, even Eric Holder seems a bit dismayed at the way these laws bypass the spirit of the Constitution. Of course, the issue is not helped by the fact that the legislative and judicial branches are complicit in their agreement to the current interpretation. These processes have gone mostly unchallenged until the War with Iraq/Terror began.

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 1:53:04 PM

I'm firing from the hip here, but weren't the Alien and Sedition acts highly controversial when they were proposed? or am I thinking of a different set of them?

Quote :

"ou just kind of answered your own question right there. There is some process. It's just that the process is total bullshit."

it's not just that said process must exist. My statement also clearly says that said process must be agreed upon or legislated in some way

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 1:55:04 PM

Whether they were controversial 100 years ago doesn't mean much. They passed. All that matters is that they've been on the books for a long time without being legitimately challenged and that they have an entire subset of laws dedicated to allowing the executive branch unchecked power to detain war criminals.

3/7/2012 1:58:59 PM

a quick wiki on it revealed my suspicions that they were passed early on in the country's history, in 1798, not around WWI, which led to some of my confusion. It's also suggested on wiki that they were never challenged in the SC because they were passed before Marbury-Madison.

3/7/2012 2:00:39 PM

^ Beat me to it.

Before anyone calls me out, I'm going to go ahead and admit I was confused on exact laws.

Alien and Sedition Acts were 1798. Sedition and Espionage Acts were WWI.

This doesn't really change the gist of my argument, I just wanted to clear it up.

The Sedition and Espionage Acts during WWI was mostly what I had in mind because they're more recent, although the Alien and Sedition Acts are also meant to bypass the Fifth Amendment. Even if the 1798 laws were unchallenged, the WWI laws have been on the books for about 100 years.

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 2:08 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 2:03:57 PM

Quote :

"Someone in Congress or the Supreme Court needs to step up and overturn/legislate a law more in spirit with the Bill of Rights. One vague word in one amendment has set off a shit storm in modern times."

Quote :

"...in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration’s argument that it could detain American citizens accused of Terrorism without any process for them to contest the accusations against them, though the Court held that something less than a full-scale trial could satisfy the Due Process clause. But as Marcy Wheeler points out, the Court imposed “due process” requirements that are the exact opposite of what the Obama administration is doing with its assassinations. Said the Court (emphasis added): It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation’s commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad. . . . We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker. . ."

From the same article linked above:
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/attorney_general_holder_defends_execution_without_charges/singleton/



In other words, the Bush Administration was told by the courts that some level of due process was required. Obama is getting out of that requirement by just killing people instead of detaining them.

3/7/2012 2:50:05 PM

makes sense. Obama is a Constitutional Law Professor, after all...

3/7/2012 2:54:37 PM

We didn't hold a trial for every Nazi killed during WWII. This is the same policy applied much more broadly. Again, I emphasize the point that we've been constantly at war for so long that the meaning of war has changed in a legal sense.

3/7/2012 3:10:06 PM

not on the battlefield. but we did hold a trial for the ones we captured after the fact. sort of.

3/7/2012 3:20:01 PM

Well the world is now a battlefield in the eyes of the US Government. The executive bureaucracy is running full bore on this one and will not stop. Congress or the SCOTUS need to step in and limit executive power.

3/7/2012 3:28:18 PM

whoa whoa whoa. limit government power? are you crazy??

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM. Reason : j]

3/7/2012 3:45:33 PM

I know, right? And I'm a liberal? WTF?

3/7/2012 3:52:27 PM

Quote :

"Congress or the SCOTUS need to step in and limit executive power."

One guy.

There is ONE GUY who wants the same thing.

You know his name.

3/7/2012 7:12:09 PM

A surprising amount of consensus and surprisingly little vitriol on this page.

3/7/2012 7:33:56 PM

^^ I cannot support someone who has never gotten a bill passed or compromised on anything in his entire career.

3/7/2012 7:45:42 PM

So, you are saying that a guy who stringently opposes the growth and power of the federal government and who strongly defends the constitutional restrictions placed on the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government went to Washington, D. C., and doesn't have any legislation passed by Congress?

SAY IT AIN'T SO?!?!

3/7/2012 8:25:47 PM

if c.p. ellis can find something to compromise on, then surely ron paul could have found one thing to compromise on in his 30+ years as an elected official

jus' sayin'

3/7/2012 8:49:08 PM

Quote :

"Well the world is now a battlefield in the eyes of the US Government."

I guess the difference I see is that you don't need a court trial in order to shoot back at someone who is shooting at you on the battlefield. You don't need a trial in order to shoot back at a random person who is actually in the act of shooting at you. But, it does seem like a trial is needed in order to specifically seek out a specific person and kill him. The only thing remotely similar in history is when we shot down Yamamoto, but even then, the situations don't seem comparable enough. There really is a difference in responding to a random person who is engaging in hostilities at the moment and hunting down a specific person and then killing him.

3/7/2012 9:02:01 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell



[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 9:08 PM. Reason : ,]

3/7/2012 9:06:03 PM

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/obama-admin-wants-warrantless-access-to-cell-phone-location-data.ars

3/7/2012 9:17:56 PM

and liberals will keep voting for this SOB because he's got a "D" beside his name

then again, for a black guy, a D's as good as an A with affirmative action

3/7/2012 9:39:51 PM

I agree with you, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

^

3/8/2012 12:20:50 AM

Quote :

"if c.p. ellis can find something to compromise on, then surely ron paul could have found one thing to compromise on in his 30+ years as an elected official"

C.P. Ellis was an ignorant racist before his heart changed

Ron Paul has been defending our rights and liberty while the politicians have been compromising on The Fed, TARP, Iraq, The Patriot Act, The NDAA.

And that compromise has done what good foor our rights protected by the Constitution?

3/8/2012 12:00:30 PM

Has Paul actually accomplished anything in his career besides grandstanding and raking in pork for his district?

3/8/2012 12:01:33 PM

your problem in that statement is that you equate any legislation as an "accomplishment" and the only possible "accomplishment" is any legislation.

3/8/2012 1:58:33 PM

No, I also treat both grandstanding and raking in pork as accomplishments.

Can we expect a guy who can't get a single piece of legislation through his entire career to somehow do so as president? Does the "no compromise, ever" approach work for anybody except dictators?

3/8/2012 2:04:34 PM