Jump to content


The Official Obama Scorecard Thread


  • Please log in to reply
6493 replies to this topic

#6481 CaneBrain

CaneBrain

    The chosen few....

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts
  • Location:The NFL Films Vault
  • Favorite Poker Game:5/10 NLHE (100 max buy in)

Posted 20 June 2012 - 04:42 PM

View Posthblask, on 20 June 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

Obama invokes executive privilege in Fast and Furious.Executive privilege relates to communications between the president and others.
http://thinkprogress...ions/?mobile=ncNot exactly. I miss the Henry that wasn't a blatant Republican shill."Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all asserted executive privilege in matters not involving presidential communications. And Bush Administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey invoked the same “deliberative process privilege” as recently as 2008, rejecting congressional subpoenas for reports of Department of Justice interviews with the White House staff regarding the Valerie Plame Wilson identify leak investigation."
"Give a little bit.....give a little bit of your chips to me...."

#6482 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 20 June 2012 - 05:14 PM

View PostCaneBrain, on 20 June 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

http://thinkprogress...ions/?mobile=ncNot exactly. I miss the Henry that wasn't a blatant Republican shill."Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all asserted executive privilege in matters not involving presidential communications. And Bush Administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey invoked the same “deliberative process privilege” as recently as 2008, rejecting congressional subpoenas for reports of Department of Justice interviews with the White House staff regarding the Valerie Plame Wilson identify leak investigation."
So as long as someone before has done the same wrong, it is OK to do it?I think the whole 'executive privilge thing is a scam. They work for us, there is no executive privilege.From a political standpoint, it is always a ridiculous move, basically an admission of guilt.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#6483 CaneBrain

CaneBrain

    The chosen few....

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts
  • Location:The NFL Films Vault
  • Favorite Poker Game:5/10 NLHE (100 max buy in)

Posted 20 June 2012 - 05:26 PM

No I'm just pointing out that the assertion that executive privilege implies presidential knowledge or communication is patently false which is what you implied.I'm not a fan of executive privilege but it seems to be a tradition that every president does it once.
"Give a little bit.....give a little bit of your chips to me...."

#6484 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 20 June 2012 - 05:35 PM

I've read several reports today referencing court cases which state that it only applies to communication with the president. I, of course, did not check the accuracy of that statement, but saw it a couple of times in relatively neutral sites.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#6485 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 21 June 2012 - 06:35 PM

View PostDJ Vu, on 20 June 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

That link led me to a story about a man with a 100 pound scrotum.
Well that was ballsy of me
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#6486 SAM_Hard8

SAM_Hard8

    Mr. Aniston, FCP Right Wing Whacko

  • Members
  • 29,588 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jennifer Aniston
  • Favorite Poker Game:NLH

Posted 23 June 2012 - 09:34 AM

I think every administration needs to defend and protect executive privilege, right or wrong. It's a fundamental separation of powers thing.
My blog
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx

QUOTE (Mercury69 @ Monday, December 20th, 2010, 5:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Aren't we all just parasites living on God's frozen turdballs anyway? Every time God takes a shit, a new galaxy is born. The Milky Way is just a bad case of diarrhea.



#6487 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 23 June 2012 - 05:21 PM

THe whole concept of executive privilege is a joke. We are paying their salary, they have no secrets from us. The only thing they should be able to withhold from the people who pay their salary is things that are a direct threat to national security or the lives of agents of that security, as determined by a non-partisan panel with clearance to see everything. Everything else should be public record.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#6488 LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke

    Ending the world one proton at a time

  • Members
  • 8,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manhattan
  • Interests:fizziks, teh maths, Raid-o-head, Rod Reynolds

Posted 23 June 2012 - 08:18 PM

View Posthblask, on 23 June 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

THe whole concept of executive privilege is a joke. We are paying their salary, they have no secrets from us. The only thing they should be able to withhold from the people who pay their salary is things that are a direct threat to national security or the lives of agents of that security, as determined by a non-partisan panel with clearance to see everything. Everything else should be public record.
As I understand it, their argument is that the requested papers would reveal information about current agents working in Mexico. They're not denying that the program happened.

#6489 AmScray

AmScray

    Honk

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Favorite Poker Game:wrhsf235yu

Posted 24 June 2012 - 01:00 AM

View PostLongLiveYorke, on 23 June 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

As I understand it, their argument is that the requested papers would reveal information about current agents working in Mexico. They're not denying that the program happened.
"Protecting the identity of (agents/confidential informants)" is a pretty standard stonewall tactic to keep from providing robust and accurate information in a timely manner. They say that all the time.There was a Federal case where they indicted a guy about a week before the statute of limitations was due to expire. Trivial shit (drug possession, tiny amount for personal use, incidentally discovered during an unrelated search warrant when the guy happened to be on the premises). When the judge asked the DEA agents present why they had waited so long, that was the excuse they cited. The guys defense attorney showed that the particular 'confidential informant' in question had been used in a half-dozen other cases and was even indexed in Google in several court records.As best anyone can figure, the reason they waited so long to indict was they found themselves in a rush to quickly pad their arrest figures. His case had apparently been filed in the 'who ****ing cares' pile but they dusted it off and hauled the poor SOB in when the arrest rate for that particular fell below the national average and they needed some low hanging fruit to quickly juice up their numbers.
Posted Image

#6490 Sal Paradise

Sal Paradise

    shot down in a blaze of glory

  • Members
  • 6,833 posts
  • Location:Sausalito
  • Favorite Poker Game:cuddling

Posted 24 June 2012 - 10:24 AM

well maybe he should have thought about that before he broke the law!
QUOTE (Tactical Bear @ Monday, June 15th, 2009, 9:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Anybody who dies of Swine Flu is just a faggot.

#6491 AmScray

AmScray

    Honk

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Favorite Poker Game:wrhsf235yu

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:51 PM

View PostSal Paradise, on 24 June 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

well maybe he should have thought about that before he broke the law!
Amen!
Posted Image

#6492 colonel Feathers

colonel Feathers

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,081 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 27 June 2012 - 11:39 AM

View PostAmScray, on 24 June 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

"Protecting the identity of (agents/confidential informants)" is a pretty standard stonewall tactic to keep from providing robust and accurate information in a timely manner. They say that all the time.There was a Federal case where they indicted a guy about a week before the statute of limitations was due to expire. Trivial shit (drug possession, tiny amount for personal use, incidentally discovered during an unrelated search warrant when the guy happened to be on the premises). When the judge asked the DEA agents present why they had waited so long, that was the excuse they cited. The guys defense attorney showed that the particular 'confidential informant' in question had been used in a half-dozen other cases and was even indexed in Google in several court records.As best anyone can figure, the reason they waited so long to indict was they found themselves in a rush to quickly pad their arrest figures. His case had apparently been filed in the 'who ****ing cares' pile but they dusted it off and hauled the poor SOB in when the arrest rate for that particular fell below the national average and they needed some low hanging fruit to quickly juice up their numbers.
Is this autobiographical by chance?
I dont suffer from delusions

I enjoy them

#6493 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:13 PM

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.

I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2,000 a month on groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc., but it's time to get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back.


I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio (1/35,000) of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2,000 a month, I'm going to have to cut that number by six cents. Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice is all about.

I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries – six cents worth."

I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#6494 nutzbuster

nutzbuster

    Point taken....

  • Members
  • 11,378 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix / Motor City

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:25 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on 13 December 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.

I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2,000 a month on groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc., but it's time to get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back.


I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio (1/35,000) of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2,000 a month, I'm going to have to cut that number by six cents. Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice is all about.

I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries – six cents worth."




Skin in the game. I salute your patriotism sir...



F Cancer




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users