Any time Obama does anything, add it here and we'll keep score so that selective memory isn't an issue a year or four from now.

Suspend prosecution of Gitmo prisoners.

Umm, isn't the problem that they are being held without trial? Wouldn't we want *faster* prosecution? Apparently this is to review unfair prosecutions, but does nothing to help all the others who have not been prosecuted after years and years. I would think a speedy trial would be better. At any rate, it shows Obama's concern that these people get fair trials and that the days of business as usual are over. I'll give him a win on this one.

1-0-0

Freeze salaries of high-paid officials.

This is a tiny drop in a very big bucket, but it's a step in the right direction. It means more as a symbolic move than a practical one, but I like it. Another win.

2-0-0

New lobbying rules to limit the influence of political insiders

It's very convoluted, and anyone who has been in business knows that the line between the personal and the professional can get very blurry. It's a complex issue, but the gist of it is to help eliminate both impropriety along with the appearance of impropriety -- always a good thing.

3-0-0

Make the default of the Freedom of Information Act be open information and an assumption of openness, instead of the standard under Bush where you had to prove the information was harmless.

This is huge if it really happens. I hope he follows through appropriately on this and makes it happen instead of just saying it and then letting it go back to the old way once the public forgets he said this.

4-0-0

Nice start, Mr. President.

ps, there should be some way to weight the value/importance of the program. For example, if he gets another hundred minor ones right like these last three but then forces socialized medicine down our throat, he'd be 100-1-0, but it would still be a terrible record.

If socialized medicine is negative 100 then #1 above should be worth at least +5.

And the reason to delay the Gitmo trials is because they want to release some of these people but they dont know where to send them. Most of their home countries dont want them. It is a sticky situation for sure and needs to be handled delicately.

I am sure the code pink crowd will be unreasonably upset that Obama cant wave Bush's magic wand and end Guantanamo in an instant.

I think Obama has done well with just about everything since the election. Except some of his more minor appointments (the Richardson thing was an annoyance as was the tax stuff with Geither) it has been a very smooth middle of the road start. Putting Clinton as Sec of State was a great move.

Nice to see the DOW move back above 8000 (right where I predicted it would be after Obama took office....go me).

[quote name='CaneBrain' date='Wednesday, January 21st, 2009, 4:27 PM' post='2986450'
If socialized medicine is negative 100 then #1 above should be worth at least +5.

And the reason to delay the Gitmo trials is because they want to release some of these people but they dont know where to send them. Most of their home countries dont want them. It is a sticky situation for sure and needs to be handled delicately.
[/quote]

Yeah, I'd agree, #1 is bigger than the 2&3, with the FOIA one somewhere between them.

I have a feeling much of Obama's first year will be spent trying to walk the delicate line of cleaning up the mess Bush made, where "inoffensive compromise" is the best we can hope for in many cases.

And there is one thing Obama could do that would outweigh all other things -- private SS accounts with the right to opt out of the current SS system. That doesn't appear to be anywhere on his radar, so I'm not holding my breath, but maybe he'll get a couple good economists to explain that the current system is about to bankrupt the country in our lifetime, and Obama will use his political clout to get reform through. If he does that, I will immediately rank him as one of the top presidents.

Realistically, I'd settle for getting out of Iraq and not raising taxes on anyone.

I agree... I think Obama has done very well. And for your sake I hope he will implement social healthcare. I really don't understand why so many people in the States are against social healthcare. Most countries in Europe have it and it works very well for most of them. Michael Moore is not lying about the Europeans healthcare when he adresses the subject in "Sicko"
I am born in Germany and live in Denmark since 1996. Both countries have social healthcare. I will gladly answer questions if anyone is interested getting information on the subject.

Socialized medicine keeps me busy. I never get a vacation.

We have a different social philosophy than Europe. Europe is a more mature civilization, albeit with a completely different history.

In the "EUROPE HAS (X), SO WHY NOT AMERICA!" debate, there's always a deeply rooted, willful ignorance to our wildly different histories. Even though our society is derived from European peoples, we are a totally different civilization with unique considerations that don't apply in Germany or Demnark, but do apply here in a big way. Just because something works in a country like Denmark (which would fit into one of our 50 US states) doesn't mean its the right decision for a melting pot like ours with an almost unique social, governmential and economic framework.

With that said, it will come... An unfortuate aspect of white people- wherever they occur- is that they eventually liberalize their societies to the point that everything reverts to the mean, usually based on some misguided sense of "fairness".

This implication is TRUE...

...because "socialized medicine" = "negative 100" is FALSE.

Peter Eastgate might disagree about the utopian denmark society.

I dont think we are ready to do socialized medicine properly.....yet.

until then, lets focus on more pressing problems. usually we dont have problems bigger than health care but right now we have several.

I would be willing to bet money that you're healthy and have never had any major health issues. If I'm wrong, then I'd be willing to bet you don't really have a clue about how socialized medicine would have to be implemented in our country. I'm not talking smack here, but I work in the healthcare industry and I can tell you without a doubt that socialized medicine is not the answer to cure our problems.


I'd like you to post why you think socialized medicine is the answer for the healthcare system in the US. I guess that's what I get from your post, that you disagree with the notion that socialized medicine is a bad thing for us.

Feel free to explain yourself or post why you think socialized medicine is the answer. I'm very curious.


We won't have true 'socialized medicine' anywhere in the near future.

The many, many problems that exist with our current healthcare system won't be solved with socialized medicine. I've said it before, but I don't really think Americans want the government handling a program that would consume 1/7th of our economy, no matter how much they want everything for free.

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it's free."

EDIT: I don't think the OP wants this thread to devolve into a healthcare debate. I think you three should feel free to post in the healthcare thread, in this 'Daniels Blog' forum. Just a thought.

That's exactly why I'm resisting getting into this. This discussion should go here:

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...howtopic=129291

That way we don't have to start from scratch again. Of course, if Obama actually pushes something through, then it can go here.

He signed an executive order which “ends the practice of having others besides the president assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office...dentialRecords/

They are listing all executive orders here, although I've heard they were having some technical difficulties in updating the site:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/

+1 Obama

Close Guantanamo Bay, check (with a caveat about what happens to the prisoners).

End use of torture, check

Create a task force to review detention policies and procedures, check

Delay the trial of Ali al-Marri.... whatever. Give him a trial, just make sure it is fair. If that's what the delay is for, check.

C'mon Obama, do something horrible that I can complain about. This is just boring.

1. Say "lobbyists will not be a part of my administration", then appoint a lobbyist to your cabinet

2. Require access to all govt documents of former presidents and vice presidents, as long as the attorney general approves it. Let's see, the new AG is the same guy that pardoned Mark Rich and was a huge part of the Clinton administration. Yeah, that should work.

You might want to peruse this executive order:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office...icsCommitments/

Section 1. Ethics Pledge. Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2009, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:

"As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in a position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:

"1. Lobbyist Gift Ban. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.

"2. Revolving Door Ban All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.

etc....



This is adding a limit to the president's power to conceal information. How is that a bad thing?

Under Bush's executive order 1322:

• The Archivist must wait 12 years after the President has left office before any records are released.
• The Archivist must wait 90 days between notifying a President or former President of intent to release and the actual release.
• The records of a former President can only be released if the former Presidents concurs with the current President that they can be released.

But now with Obama's EO:

• Archivist will notify the current or former Presidents the intent to disclose records.
• That President will have 30 days to object or claim executive privilege.
• If executive privilege is invoked, the Archivist will not release said records until a determination by the Attorney General, Counsel to the current President, etc to determine if executive privilege applies.
• If determined not privileged, the records will be released.

Well they can now no longer try him since they suspended all trials, so the only thing they can now try him on is the 93 bombings of the WTC. So he gets a pass for his part in 9-11?

And what will they do with these people now? I guess put them in American federal prisons. Of course they will need to put them in protective lock down to keep the inmates from killing them, so that means they go from a sunny outside prison with volleyball and ping pong, to 1 hour a day outside their cell for rec time alone, and 23 hours a day inside a small cell. I guess once again the feel good liberal way isn't what they think it is.

There is an excellent article in the WSJ about this today that I am too lazy to look up again, but basically it says that Obama is finding the problem is more complicated than his campaign promises made it sound, and that in order to shut it down in a year he'll have to make some very tough choices, including just locking some people up and throwing away the key.

I say, OK, so we don't need to check if they were read their Miranda Rights and everything, but just do *something* with them. Holding them indefinitely with no rights is NOT an acceptable option.

I agree that nothing is not an answer, but I was never under the impression that that was what the military was doing. Just slow about their acions.



I guess we can send them all to Canada. Maybe they will learn some manners

Seven years with NO movement is not just slow, thats a travesty. It's not like they have tens of thousands of people to process.... they could easily have gotten through everyone by now.

Nah, the Swiss are stepping up to the plate and it sounds like the Portugese and French are also willing.

Makes sense to share the responsibility


Switzerland to consider hosting Guantanamo Inmates

obama needs to go after bush and cheney. they need to be tried as war criminals along with donald rums. now that it has been confirmed that they supported and encouraged the use of blatant torture, breaking every international law and the geneva conventions. i wont be happy with obama unless he makes this happen.

prepare to be upset then. Obama has way too many things on his plate to risk a long, drawn out legal battle with GWB and Cheney which will inevitably ruin any chance of the GOP being on board with Obama's administration. No good can come from that.

The idiocy you spew is amazing.

I thought it was just me.

No. There's a few of you that spew idiocy

What happens in the religous forum, stays in the religous forum.

how is going after admitted war criminals idiocy? do you support our use of torture? do you support high officials being considered above the law? do you not have any backup to anything that you say?

i think there is a lot of good that can come from it. i dont think the GOP is on board anyway. plus they have little to no power. this doesnt have to happen right now, but it needs to happen because it sets a dangerous precedent if we let our own admitted war criminals get away.

Do you even know what the Geneva Convention says?

Cause I am willing to bet you don't.

In fact I am willing to bet that most of what you say comes right from your feelings, totally bypassing your brain











Luckily it's a very short detour

i know they are concerned with the treatment of prisoners of war, and i know they generally are against torture. even if i didnt know that i could just wikipedia it so this type of attack is useless on the internet.

are you going to tell me they arnt prisoners of war now?

hahahahahaha, god, you're such a fucking retard.
Baloonguy pegged you to the wall. You are 99% emotive, 1% reason.
It's very common for leftists to be heavily slanted towards emotion over reason, but you take it to such an extreme degree that you're incapable of seeing the real world that exists before your very eyes.


Hope hope hope! Change change change! Hope change hope change hope hope change!

No I'm not going to say they aren't POWs.

The Geneva Convention on the other hand will.

In order to be a POW, you must be captured while wearing the uniform of your country.

If you target civilians you are breaking the Geneva Convention

If you behead aid workers you are breaking the GC

If you hide in churches, schools and hospitals and fire on soldiers then hide in the populace, you are breakig the GC

If you keep a guy up late and stick underwear on his head, and make him listen to loud music...you are not breaking the GC


Even if it's Rosie O'donnel's underwear and the music is rap.


So while you throw out catchy phrases and pretend you care, the facts remnain that you don't not really know what you are saying


Which puts you about average for the democrat party though, so at least you are in good company.

1. There is no proof of torture. And to a certain extent I support tactics that get information our of war criminals that will save American lives.

2. What law did anyone break? The reason there has been no charges, is because there is nothing to charge anyone with.

3. Welcome war criminals into the US Penal system, that makes a lot of sense.

Well he just signed a bill to give $40 Million in federal money so people can kill their fetuses. So I would put that around a negative fifty three or so.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23463777.htm (-50,000,000)


http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mid...ee.1-414168.php (closing Gitmo could be worth a LOT of American lives, but it should be at LEAST -3,000)

Close Gitmo. Yes I suppose you're right. I suppose that's the thing to do. Wait. Wait. I've got a better idea. Let's transfer the whole squad off the base. Let's -- on second thought the whole Windward division, let's transfer 'em off the base. Jon, go on out there and get those boys down off the fence, they're packing their bags. Get me the President on the phone, we're surrendering our position in Cuba.

Some of you guys are making your scorecard based on your interests as opposed to the interests of the country who put him in charge.

Of course, it's totally fine to make your own scorecard, but i think listing YOUR scorecard should belong in another thread.

There won't be one objective right or wrong. but does listing hyperbolic scores serve anyone's interest except your own desire to let your views be known? From my perspective, as soon as you say anything that fails to recognize an opposing view, I stop listening.

[size="5"][/size]Nobody likes him very much...

you seem to be devoid of any ability to actually say anything. all of your posts consist of you laughing at your own worthless observations about other people on an internet forum, or cries for attention in the form of exaggerated, intentionally controversial statements.

i seem to be seeing the same real world that most of the rest of the world sees, and a good amount of people in this country, including this constitutional law professor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXeIrf7QDiw

please. there is plenty of evidence. including an off the record confession by bush, and on the record confessions by underlings in the cia. do some research. also anyone who has experience in the field will tell you that torture only gets unreliable information, if any at all. you are using the same terrible excuse that bush has used to go against everything this country stands for. and he has broken international laws against the use of torture. there are no charges because he was president.

i mean seriously you basically just said that you would support torture to get information. no wonder you see no problem with any of this.

semantics aside, a republican judge just ruled that a combination of technically legal procedures such as what you mention over time constitutes torture. and because of that, someone responsible for 9/11 can no longer be tried for the changes he was charged with.

to me, his post meant that you are naive if you believe anything like that would ever happen.

what's more is that you put the responsibility on obama which disregards any precedent of law that i'm aware of.



does not compute.

can anyone here actually tell me why bush shouldnt be considered a war criminal if it has been established that his administration used waterboarding along with extended amounts of other "legal" forms of torture on detainees who had not been convicted or even charged of any crime?

Frank Reynolds waterboarded Sweet Dee in an episode of It's Always Sunny. She seems fine enough.

Will you also be pushing for war criminal trials against Carter, Bush I, and Clinton?

you make it feel like i'm crazy if i agree with you.

Let's see, can I argue that Bush shouldn't be tried for war crimes, for doing something you call legal, on people that don't exist?

No, you got me there.


Hey did you see the news about the former Gitmo detainee who left after 6 years and is now back to running terrorist cells?
story

Don't you hate it when you find out these innocent people being held for no reason turn out to actually be terrorist? Oh well, I will bet that the next time a well armed marine grunt sees this guy, he won't be taken prisoner and shipped to an island where he will be fed, given a prayer rug and daily visits by the ACLU to ensure he isn't kept up after his bedtime.

We can't ship thm to Canada apparently, since they won't even take a guy who hasn't bomber the US for over 30 years and has friends in the White House


Oh and how do you feel about Pakistan asking Obama to stop targeting Al Qeda strongholds because Al Qeda is putting them near civilians? I guess there's nothing we can do but surrender, I mean it would be our fault if someone innocent dies right?

Good. Then perhaps you would be willing to pit your solid comprehension of real-world goings on against my disconnection with a little wager. We can post with a neutral 3rd party.

You bet that anyone from the Bush crew will be tried for war crimes.
I bet that no one from the administration will be tried for war crimes.
I will lay you 6-1- minimum bet $100- and we can set up some sort of a time frame.

Now, I can't forecast what your excuse will be for not taking the bet (I will make side action on that too), but if I'm wrong and you sincerely believe that you're correct and firmly grasping reality- that there is indeed a realistic chance of this happening- then surely one parallel universe in five would indict them in a court of law, so I'm giving you a +ev situation to prove that you sincerely believe in what you're saying, as opposed to being a typical delusionaly idealistic leftist retard prattling a bunch of pie-eyed nonsense that has no application whatsoever to the real world, even though you insist that it does.

Time to put your money where your mouth is, Corky.

Here's the title of the story:
Obama breaks from Bush

First paragrapg to set the tone of the story:



Here's the interesting paragraph:




So he is stopping torture, but might keep the option open for high-vaue targets....which is who we were 'torturing' in the first place.

He is stopping all former lobbyist from influencing his administration at lower levels, but he is okay with a couple in the upper level.


Anyone think the headlines for the story would have been different if McCain would have been elected here?
Besides changing to McCain makes a break from Bush?