Obama's Cabinet appointments

[GarfieldJL]

And you give me any specifics I'll go after them too, however the problem with your argument is that in Bush's case they did what they did while they were already in office, Obama's people are already in trouble before they even get into office.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

So they're okay because they got away with their poo for longer? And from the articles you linked to, Holder didn't actually do anything wrong, it's just "Republican investigators" who said Holder "gave at least a partial endorsement" of Rich's pardon (oh no some guy who may or may not have broken a few tax laws over 20 years ago got pardoned 7 years ago fasdfsdfsdf).

 

whew my god jonathan i dunno what i was thinking when i swore in my above post thanks for editing the asterisks that it got turned into by the vb language filter when it got posted wow i need to get my mind right that was way out of line

[True_Avery]

And you give me any specifics I'll go after them too, however the problem with your argument is that in Bush's case they did what they did while they were already in office, Obama's people are already in trouble before they even get into office.

So, you are immune to crimes when they are done while you hold the office?

 

I believe there is a type of government that goes by those rules:

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

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

 

It seems to me you are simply favoring an administration running under your flag.

[Jae Onasi]

If you'd like to dicuss pardons, it might be better to start a new thread for that. I think it will make for some interesting discussion.

 

Heard on the radio today, so I think I''m missing a couple people. This is assuming they are confirmed, of course, but we'll be seeing the following people:

 

Sec'y of State--Hillary Clinton. With her connections, experience as Senator and First Lady visiting foreign countries and meeting dignataries, and her unbelievable energy, I think she'll do well in the job. One could be cynical I suppose and say Obama is 'keeping friends close and enemies even closer', but I think it's far more likely that he chose her, /and/ she accepted, because they both thought she'd do a terrific job. In terms of Clinton, this is actually probably a better spot for her to do something effective than the VP job might have been

 

Sec'y of defense--Gates is staying on. He managed to turn around the awful mess Rumsfeld created and make the Iraq situation better in terms of supporting the fledgling democracy and taking out the militant extremists who threatened Iraq.

 

Obama said he'd like to have /combat/ troops out of Iraq 16 months after he takes office, but was careful to point out support troops may be needed longer. He also noted the situation was worsening in Afghanistan and South Asia in paparticular. He made a comment about their being 'one President at a time' in regards to the Americans affected by the Mumbai tragedy--a rather oblique way of giving the nod to Bush in terms of who was in charge now.

Attorney Gen.--Holden. I don't know a lot about him, but his name had been floated for a few weeks so there's no surprise there.

 

Homeland Security--Napolitano. Some thought Richardson would do a better job, but I don't really know enough about her to say one way or another. Again, her name had been floated a couple weeks so that was no surprise, either.

 

National Security Advisor--missed that one, I'll edit in later. This is actually a very important job since this person advises the President on major foreign issues, particularly trouble spots, and it's generally overlooked by the press. To be fair, though, the NSA deals with the most highly classified information in the gov't, so they generally can't talk a lot about what they do anyway. If you want to have an idea of what future foreign issues we''ll be dealing with, watch what the NSA is talking about today.

 

Ambassador to the UN--Susan Rice, iirc. Can't tell you much about her, but I view that more as a fluff job than the others, not because of the US but because the UN has become such an impotent force on so many things.

 

That's all I can remember off the top of my head right now.

[GarfieldJL]

If you'd like to dicuss pardons, it might be better to start a new thread for that. I think it will make for some interesting discussion.

 

In this case when it has to do with Obama's appointees, I must respectfully disagree, and here's why.

 

By assisting in getting certain individuals pardoned and not following proper procedure, additionally there are indications that bribery was potentially involved, the question becomes why would Obama appoint someone with such a disreputable past? The mainstream media says this guy is a centrist which he clearly isn't. You can't even argue that it's guilt by association because the man participated in it.

 

Fact is there is a clear pattern emerging here, and as I've pointed out before how many dots does one need to indicate that these aren't random blips.

 

Heard on the radio today, so I think I''m missing a couple people. This is assuming they are confirmed, of course, but we'll be seeing the following people:

 

I can give you a rundown on a few of them.

 

Sec'y of State--Hillary Clinton. With her connections, experience as Senator and First Lady visiting foreign countries and meeting dignataries, and her unbelievable energy, I think she'll do well in the job. One could be cynical I suppose and say Obama is 'keeping friends close and enemies even closer', but I think it's far more likely that he chose her, /and/ she accepted, because they both thought she'd do a terrific job. In terms of Clinton, this is actually probably a better spot for her to do something effective than the VP job might have been

 

Quite frankly she should stay in the Senate, he's offering her the position so she'll be replaced. Fact is that her husband's financial connections could undercut her work as Secretary of State.

 

Sec'y of defense--Gates is staying on. He managed to turn around the awful mess Rumsfeld created and make the Iraq situation better in terms of supporting the fledgling democracy and taking out the militant extremists who threatened Iraq.

 

Which doesn't do any good because Obama wants to pull out regardless of the consequences.

 

Obama said he'd like to have /combat/ troops out of Iraq 16 months after he takes office, but was careful to point out support troops may be needed longer.

 

His campaign promise was to pull them out regardless. Wasn't Rumsfeld's drawing down troops too soon a contributor of the mess that we needed the troop surge to fix.

 

He also noted the situation was worsening in Afghanistan and South Asia in paparticular.

 

Then why is he planning to gut the budget that the Military has to work with.

 

Attorney Gen.--Holden. I don't know a lot about him, but his name had been floated for a few weeks so there's no surprise there.

 

He's the man that got all those people pardoned during Clinton's last hours in office. You can do a google search and find a ton of articles on this guy.

 

Homeland Security--Napolitano. Some thought Richardson would do a better job, but I don't really know enough about her to say one way or another. Again, her name had been floated a couple weeks so that was no surprise, either.

 

Unfamiliar with her name but I can do some research.

[jrrtoken]

The mainstream media says this guy is a centrist which he clearly isn't.

He ain't a liberal, he's a centrist. The chart proves it:

Fact is there is a clear pattern emerging here, and as I've pointed out before how many dots does one need to indicate that these aren't random blips.

You've pointed them out through a blurred, biased looking glass that proves absolutely nothing. If you'd stop posting links to articles with smearing headlines such as "Larry King Guests all Conduct Love Fest for Erik Holder Despite Marc Rich Pardon Role", then maybe I'll actually consider them with some merit, but so far, they put me off from the get go.

Quite frankly she should stay in the Senate, he's offering her the position so she'll be replaced. Fact is that her husband's financial connections could undercut her work as Secretary of State.

:confused:

 

Uh, in this post, you said that you wanted Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State. So which one is it?

[GarfieldJL]

He ain't a liberal, he's a centrist. The chart proves it:

 

You've pointed them out through a blurred, biased looking glass that proves absolutely nothing. If you'd stop posting links to articles with smearing headlines such as "Larry King Guests all Conduct Love Fest for Erik Holder Despite Marc Rich Pardon Role", then maybe I'll actually consider them with some merit, but so far, they put me off from the get go.

:confused:

 

You do realize you can lie on those tests, and to be blunt, I posted some left wing sources concerning that pardon too, which you apparently didn't read and/or simply ignored.

I even posted the search so you could look at over 60,000 hits on the topic.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Marc+Rich+pardon+eric+holder&aq=f&oq=

 

Also I can tell that the results you posted are complete and utter garbage, because Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the US Senate and Joe Biden isn't far behind. He isn't remotely conservative, most of what he's for is completely opposite of the conservative platform.

 

Further you can tell it is completely inaccurate because it is painting John McCain to be a far right nutcase which he obviously isn't.

 

Uh, in this post, you said that you wanted Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State. So which one is it?

 

I got to thinking after I made that post as to what motive Obama would have for appointing Hillary to that position and it could be an attempt to get her knocked out of the senate to get another far left loon appointed to take her place.

 

Then I also heard about some issues concerning her husband recently, but my primarily reason is due to her senate seat, I hope she rejects his appointment for that reason.

[The Doctor]

So, if McCain had chosen Clinton for his own SecStat, it would've been an excellent example of bipartisan cabinet selection, but because Obama did it he's just trying to weed her out of the Senate and replace her with a "Left loon" which, to be perfectly honest, is a damn sight better than radical Right wingers.

[GarfieldJL]

So, if McCain had chosen Clinton for his own SecStat, it would've been an excellent example of bipartisan cabinet selection, but because Obama did it he's just trying to weed her out of the Senate and replace her with a "Left loon" which, to be perfectly honest, is a damn sight better than radical Right wingers.

 

Uh McCain is a Republican and by law she'd have to be replaced by a member of her own party, plus isn't the Governor of New York a Democrat currently? So it wouldn't be as big of a deal, it's all about checks and balances.

 

Also you may say that now, but Eric Holder has a pretty bad reputation for wanting to institute media censorship even on the net, and it can be argued it is politically motivated.

 

We're potentially looking at free speech only being allowed if you're on the liberal left, I kid you not, first item on their agenda is the "fairness" doctrine also known as the censorship doctrine.

[jrrtoken]

Also I can tell that the results you posted are complete and utter garbage, because Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the US Senate and Joe Biden isn't far behind. He isn't remotely conservative, most of what he's for is completely opposite of the conservative platform.

 

So, the graph is now wrong, all because the definition of liberal, in your point of view, does not match the actual definition of a liberal. from the FAQ page of the PoliticalCompass.com website:

You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left ?

This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology - deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism.

 

In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together.

 

Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes ?

[GarfieldJL]

So, the graph is now wrong, all because the definition of liberal, in your point of view, does not match the actual definition of a liberal. from the FAQ page of the PoliticalCompass.com website:

 

Being for abortions to the point of infantcide isn't a conservative viewpoint, being for banning guns isn't a conservative viewpoint.

 

Being for redistribution of wealth is a far left viewpoint.

 

Stem Cell research is a left wing viewpoint. (something McCain supports too)

 

I can go on and on, so quite frankly I don't think they inputted things in accurately concerning Obama.

 

Furthermore, he's appointing people that are known to be corrupt.

[True_Avery]

Furthermore, he's appointing people that are known to be corrupt.

I would love to see an uncorrupted politician...

 

Again, you are using an America viewpoint of conservative and liberal. Although you probably don't care what the rest of the world thinks anyway.

[jrrtoken]

Any proof saying that Obama truly wants to kill babies would be gleefully accepted.

[GarfieldJL]

Any proof saying that Obama truly wants to kill babies would be gleefully accepted.

 

I already did that weeks ago and you couldn't believe an audio tape from the floor of the Illinois state senate. I'm not saying that he's gleefully for just going and killing babies, what I am saying is he thinks abortion is okay even if it is killing newborn infants just because they survived a botched abortion.

[Jae Onasi]

No abortion discussion here, please. There are other threads for it. Thanks.

[GarfieldJL]

I would love to see an uncorrupted politician...

 

Let me put it another way, how many politicians (attorney generals etc.) do you know of that go out of their way to get terrorists pardoned?

 

Again, you are using an America viewpoint of conservative and liberal. Although you probably don't care what the rest of the world thinks anyway.

 

Look if the rest of the world thinks Obama is conservative I am really scared of what their definition of liberal is.

[jrrtoken]

Let me put it another way, how many politicians (attorney generals etc.) do you know of that go out of their way to get terrorists pardoned?

Since when is Mark Rich a terrorist? All he was ever charged was for tax evasion and selling oil during an embargo.

Look if the rest of the world thinks Obama is conservative I am really scared of what their definition of liberal is.

World's Opinion > America's Opinion. We're still using the Imperial system, they're using the Metric system. Everyone else has singed the Kyoto Protocol, America still hasn't. Obviously, I'd rather agree with everyone else from around the world than just from one country.

[GarfieldJL]

Since when is Mark Rich a terrorist? All he was ever charged was for tax evasion and selling oil during an embargo.

 

I believe I also pointed out that Eric Holder was behind the pardoning of Puerto Rican terrorists...

 

World's Opinion > America's Opinion.

 

Look I really couldn't care less what the world thinks at this point and really the UN is a joke and nothing more than an apology center for Islamofascists (not referring to Moderate Muslims, I am referring to lunatics that like to send children out with bombs strapped to their chests).

 

We're still using the Imperial system, they're using the Metric system.

 

It's called the English system, and quite frankly there is something called conversion equations in a calculator. I am not going to bend over backward for the rest of the world, the United States is a sovereign country that is the most charitable country in the world.

 

Everyone else has singed the Kyoto Protocol, America still hasn't.

 

Based on what I'm reading it looks like there is a pretty good reason why we didn't and to sign it in its current form is just the height of stupidity and here's why. The Kyoto Protocol is extremely arbitrary, did you know certain countries appear to be exempt or are getting around the standards. Countries like India and China for instance.

 

Following the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, India maintains that the major responsibility of curbing emission rests with the developed countries, which have accumulated emissions over a long period of time. However, the U.S. and other Western nations assert that India, along with China, will account for most of the emissions in the coming decades, owing to their rapid industrialization and economic growth.

--Kyoto Protocol

 

Looks to be rather arbitrary to me.

 

Further reading: Byrd-Hagel Resolution which passed 95-0 in the United States Senate.

 

Obviously, I'd rather agree with everyone else from around the world than just from one country.

 

Yeah so you saying that everyone that wants to annihilate the Jewish people are right and want to agree with them. The United Nations is pretty well known for condemning any action Israel takes to defend itself no matter how justified.

 

You want to talk about the UN being right and us wrong about Iraq, I can quite easily prove that argument to be blatently nothing more than garbage, especially when even the Secretary General's son was getting kickbacks from Saddam.

[jrrtoken]

I believe I also pointed out that Eric Holder was behind the pardoning of Puerto Rican terrorists...

Article, please.

Look I really couldn't care less what the world thinks at this point and really the UN is a joke and nothing more than an apology center for Islamofascists (not referring to Moderate Muslims, I am referring to lunatics that like to send children out with bombs strapped to their chests).

OK, then let's just end the UN right now. Let's just close down the headquarters right now. Let's see how long world peace will last...

Yeah so you saying that everyone that wants to annihilate the Jewish people are right and want to agree with them. The United Nations is pretty well known for condemning any action Israel takes to defend itself no matter how justified.

*yoink*

 

Please provide the article that states that France, Germany, the UK, China, Russia, Italy, and every other nation in the world wants to nuke Israel.

[GarfieldJL]

Article, please.

 

On which subject the Marc Rich one or the FALN Terrorists?

 

Marc Rich: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/20/justice-nominee-guided-rich-pardon-95730754/

 

Oh found a list of items and page 4 is of particular interest.

 

“Victims were unable to get meetings with the White House or Department of Justice,” the report said. “Some had tried to schedule meetings; they were simply rebuffed. Activists seeking clemency did get such meetings.”

--aclj.org

 

Oh and the left wing media is trying to bury the information, you're going to be hard pressed to find information on it from the Mainstream Media.

 

OK, then let's just end the UN right now. Let's just close down the headquarters right now. Let's see how long world peace will last...

 

In case you haven't noticed it already looks like the world is heading for war and it looks like it will involve Russia.

 

Please provide the article that states that France, Germany, the UK, China, Russia, Italy, and every other nation in the world wants to nuke Israel.

 

Not referring to the UK... But it is relatively easy to nail the UN on their attempts to condemn Israel, look at the 2006 Israeli/Lebanon war. There was one incident in particular I think the Canadian people hopefully will remember. I'll have to dig up the report and see if I can find it.

 

There are some other things:

Since 1961, Israel has been barred from the Asia regional group. In 2000, it was accepted within the WEOG group. The UNRWA has been accused of perpetuating the plight of Palestinian refugees. Although the UN condemns antisemitism, it has been accused of tolerating antisemitic remarks within its walls. Some argue that disproportional criticism of Israel constitutes a new form of antisemitism. UN personnel have been accused of participating directly in the armed conflict on several occasions.

--wikipedia

 

Another article specifically on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestinians,_and_the_United_Nations

 

With audio apparently.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21786_Canadian_General-_UN_Observer_Post_Used_By_Hizballah&only

[Web Rider]

It'd be nice if the UN roundly condemned all bad actions by any nation or group that did something bad, but lets face it, the UN is not a military organization, and a condemnation without any action to back it up is pretty weak regardless of who says it.

[GarfieldJL]

It'd be nice if the UN roundly condemned all bad actions by any nation or group that did something bad, but lets face it, the UN is not a military organization, and a condemnation without any action to back it up is pretty weak regardless of who says it.

 

That explains why they just target the United States and Israel and ignore situations like what we see in China, Sudan, Syria, Iran, and other countries...

 

No it goes beyond that, the General Assembly of the UN would be celebrating if the Jewish people were annihilated.

 

The situation I'm bringing up to demonstrate how the UN tried to set up Israel to get that country hit with sanctions among other things proves it.

 

littlegreenfootballs may be a blogger but this is concerning the incident where this blogger caught reuters, BBC, CNN, Associated Press, etc. in the act where they were using doctored photos and completely humiliated all of the afore mentioned news organizations.

 

 

Fact is, we have Obama appointing someone as Attorney General that secured Pardons for a traitor, terrorists (some even from Weather Underground (remember Bill Ayers)), etc. How many dots does it take before it is no longer coincidence?

[mur'phon]

In case you haven't noticed it already looks like the world is heading for war and it looks like it will involve Russia.

 

Hardly, even Vlad knows Russia isn't able to defeat a beefy European country, never mind the U.S.

 

Not referring to the UK... But it is relatively easy to nail the UN on their attempts to condemn Israel, look at the 2006 Israeli/Lebanon war.

 

I see nothing wrong with the UN condemning Israel, though I wish they'd condemn other deserving countries more often than they tend to.

 

No it goes beyond that, the General Assembly of the UN would be celebrating if the Jewish people were annihilated.

 

Serious? y/n/m?

 

The situation I'm bringing up to demonstrate how the UN tried to set up Israel to get that country hit with sanctions among other things proves it.

 

Yes, many of its members want to get it, it is understandable, though I disagree with many of their reasons for doing it. In my oppinion, Israel deserves sanctions, though it's a pity that it's one of the few countries the UN might be able to place sanctions on.

[Jae Onasi]

If you'd like to dicuss pardons, it might be better to start a new thread for that. I think it will make for some interesting discussion.

In this case when it has to do with Obama's appointees, I must respectfully disagree, and here's why.

 

You can disagree all you want--if you want to go off on a tangent and discuss pardons as an issue itself rather than the Obama cabinet, do it in another thread or your posts WILL get moderated. Neither jonathan7 nor I are going to argue moderation decisions with you or anyone else, especially in a thread. Questioning this moderation decision is not up for further discussion.

 

Quite frankly she should stay in the Senate, he's offering her the position so she'll be replaced. Fact is that her husband's financial connections could undercut her work as Secretary of State.

I'm sure that's occurred to the Obama team. She has the drive, political savvy, and contacts that few others have. There aren't too many others who could equal what she brings to the table.

 

Which doesn't do any good because Obama wants to pull out regardless of the consequences....

His campaign promise was to pull them out regardless. Wasn't Rumsfeld's drawing down troops too soon a contributor of the mess that we needed the troop surge to fix.

Obama emphasized combat troops, not support troops. I think he's intelligent enough to listen to the SecDef and the Joint Chiefs to alter any decisions as needed. I don't think he would have kept Gates on as SecDef if he planned to blow off Gates' advice. Rumsfeld wasn't a good SecDef, period. The problem wasn't drawing down troops too soon, it was that they moved so fast to Baghdad that they didn't adequately secure the areas they'd taken on the way, and all those weapons stayed in the civilian population to be used by insurgents. However that's an argument for the Iraq war discussions.

Then why is he planning to gut the budget that the Military has to work with.

Well, I haven't seen his budget plans, have you? Unless you have some inside information the rest of us don't have (bloggers don't count), we have no idea what he's going to do with the military budget yet.

 

He's the man that got all those people pardoned during Clinton's last hours in office. You can do a google search and find a ton of articles on this guy.

President Bill Clinton pardoned those people, not Holden. Let's be clear on that. Holden couldn't do squat if Clinton hadn't pardoned them--the buck stopped with Clinton, not Holden. Saying 'Holden pardoned these people so he shouldn't be AG' is invalid since Holden wasn't the one who pardoned these people in the first place.