Obama’s Law Breaking Is Political Courage
by Big Dog on Jun 19, 2009 at 15:50 Political
When George Bush fired some US Attorneys, all done in accordance with the law (they serve at his pleasure), he was soundly thrashed in the media. He was accused of protecting people who were being investigated and of firing those who did not hold the same opinions as he. The left had investigations and issued subpoenas. They made a federal case out of it, so to speak.
Obama has fired an inspector general who was investigating wrongdoing by one of his supporters (a friend of his wife) and has reportedly fired two others with whom his ideas were at odds. Obama did not follow the law that he cosponsored with regard to the firings. In other words, he broke the law by not following procedures. One of the attorneys involved said that the firings were acts of political courage:
“But [Eisen] said that what they did [the firing] in trying to fix the situation was an act of political courage — and ‘political courage’ is the phrase they used,” says the aide. Washington Examiner
George Bush fires attorneys who work at his pleasure and did so in accordance with the law and the left made him out to be a villain. He was doing something corrupt and wrong according to them.
Obama breaks the law in firing at least one, and probably three, inspectors general and he was courageous. This is sheer hypocrisy and the media has given it very little play. ABC is probably preparing for the Obama Infomercial and the others are too busy enjoying the tingles up their legs to actually report on this.
The statists and other Obama apologists will claim he did nothing wrong, but again I point out, he broke the law when he fired them. They will find excuses to exonerate their messiah.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: firing, illegal, inspector general, Obama
Walpin, another dazed and confused Bush incompetent sent packing. Good job!
Your comparison with Bush politicizing the DOJ and requiring political litmus tests, is really quite laughable.
Regarding him “breaking the law.” Isn’t it the republican rule of thumb that if the president does it, it isn’t against the law?
Yes, I think that’s how it goes.
D.
Not if it is the same law that Barry had passed- he is a hypocrite, a liar, and should be impeached.
Darrel, I think anyone who breaks the law should be held accountable. But there is a big difference between liberals running around screaming that a law was broken and actually breaking a law.
Walprin was not dazed and confused. He was doing his job.
As for politicizing the DOJ? Clinton did that when he fired them all to ensure the investigation of Rostenkoski ended.
Not one peep from the libs.
If Walprin’s job includes being dazed and confused, then he was doing his job. Some people are sharp and on the ball at 77. Others, not so much. We can’t have such incompetence overseeing such an important role with regard to a billion dollar agency. That’s just common sense.
If, a few months from now, this information about his incompetence came forward and there was a scandal at Americorp, you would be hounding Obama for keeping him. And for once, you would have had a decent and sensible criticism. Something that rises above fly swatting and senators asking to be called senator.
D.
Unless you were there, you cannot comment on dazed and confused, although you are a specialist on that I am sure.
All you libbies screamed when Bush did what he could do legally- what Hussein did was not legal, and done just to cover up a crime- that is aiding and abetting, criminal offenses. I’d love to see Barry do the perp walk- he’d be a natural.
I don’t know who “Barry” is. Perhaps you could consider conducting yourself like an adult?
Or is that too much to ask?
Don’t remember “Barry”? How about Hussein? Now do you know?
No. Best to refer to people by the names as they choose to use them. Otherwise you are committing the ad hominem fallacy, something which *you* just said *yesterday,* makes a person look “pathetic.”
So, were you lying when you said this yesterday? Or are you, in your words, “pathetic?”
Your choice.
D.
—————–
Let’s ask Karl Rove what he thinks:
****
ROVE: Look the “Hussein”…using his middle
name helps Obama, it doesn’t hurt him. So anybody who wants to help John McCain ought to stop using…
WALLACE: How do you explain that?
ROVE: ‘Cause I think people look at it and
say, ‘look, that’s one step too far. You’re
trying to leave an implication that he is a
Muslim when I know he’s not.’ And I think you
know, lot of times attacks in politics fail, in fact they turn into a negative for the person who’s doing the attacking because people think it’s gone too far. And this frankly, goes too far.”
LINK
Bit on Walpin (age 77):
***
“In a letter to lawmakers on Tuesday, White House ethics counsel Norm Eisen said Obama’s action was based in part on Walpin being “confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions” at a May 20 meeting of the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service.
“It was a very emotionally draining meeting for me and the rest of the board members,” a panel member told POLITICO Wednesday. “There were several periods of time where there were one- to two-minute pauses where he clearly was confused and was not able to respond to questions and was just going through his notes…..It was painful.”
etc.
Link
As a good organizer knows (Obama’s specialty), if you don’t get rid of the incompetent ones, it comes back to bite ya. Ask Bush about Katrina and his “heck-of-a-job Brownie.”
Well this would certainly be a good story to invent in order to get rid of someone. However, being confused, disoriented, and unable to answer questions at one meeting is not a reason to fire someone. If it is true (and I highly doubt it), maybe he had low blood sugar, was tired from being up a long time. These are not reasons to fire. It is obvious that it was politically motivated.
If being confused, disoriented and unable to answer questions shows incompetence than Gibbs should have been gone long ago.
And Obama would fit that bill without the teleprompter.
He is a community rabble rouser, nothing more.
Bigd: “a good story to invent in order to get rid of someone.”>>
DAR
So you understand it is a good reason, you just think, without any basis whatsoever, that it is a “story.”
Regarding it being a “story,” note:
***
“At the May 20 meeting, Walpin “made reference to the fact that he was planning to issue some kind of statement later that day related to that matter,” the board member said. “At the conclusion, several of us raised the issue as to why he was going to be doing that….At which point, he became confused and said he didn’t say that—even though several of us had written it down.”
Eventually the board gave up on the discussion and, after Walpin left, the bipartisan group acted unanimously to have chairman Alan Solomont ask the White House to remove Walpin, the panel member said.”
–ibid
Note, the board acted *unanimously.* But they were there and you weren’t, so what do they know?
Bigd: “However, being confused, disoriented, and unable to answer questions at one meeting is not a reason to fire someone.”>>
DAR
Actually it is. And he is a Bush appointee, so his competence is suspect already.
Regarding Gibbs, if he ever has “one- to two-minute pauses where he clearly was confused and was not able to respond to questions and was just going through his notes…”
He will be gone the same day. And with good reason.
Regarding Obama’s teleprompter. Of all the silliness you bunnies try to throw at the president this one is perhaps the most amusing and futile. I understand it. You had a dry drunk president who had perhaps some damage to the communication/verbal parts of his brain so he was off the charts unintelligible. Routinely incomprehensible. Calendars were made with a fresh idiotic comment from him for *each day of the year.* I have one. He was at least 10x worst than Dan Quayle, who was really bad.
So you guys really want to strike back on this issue. Tit for tat. Got it. But it’s ridiculous. Obama is easily the most eloquent speaking president we’ve had since Kennedy and perhaps longer. The print ready prose just flows from the guy. Your charge is just so unbelievable (as everyone knows) so it’s bizarre that you would even try. But I know you will. It’s tit for tat. But you just don’t have any ammo on this. One time, on a campaign trail he said he went to 57 states instead of 47. That this would even be used as an example tells you just how weak your position is. Obama has a near zero gaffe rate. Bush was an at least a one gaffe a day guy.
Keep trying though.
Oh, they called Jesus a rabble rouser too. He made more gaffes than Obama. Would you like to see a list of Jesus’ boo boo’s? Just let me know.
D.
—————–
“One of the most meaningful things that’s happened to me since I’ve been the governor — the president — governor — president. Oops. Ex-governor. I went to Bethesda Naval Hospital to give a fellow a Purple Heart, and at the same moment I watched him—get a Purple Heart for action in Iraq — and at that same — right after I gave him the Purple Heart, he was sworn in as a citizen of the United States — a Mexican citizen, now a United States citizen.”
—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 9, 2004
So just being a “Bush Appointee” he was already suspect in your mind? And you think we’re being more intolerant than you? What a laugh, you hypocrite.
BLK: “just being a “Bush Appointee” he was already suspect in your mind?>>
DAR
Of course. Bush is *famous* for installing incompetents and cronies. Would you like a hundred examples? Let me know if you would like a hundred examples.
D.
—————–
ps. Don’t forget to ask if you want a hundred examples.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black- what about Daschle, Killefer, Rangel, Conyers, Frank, Dodd, Schumer, Pelosi, ad nauseum?
And if you call in the next five minutes, we’ll double your supply of idiots.
BLK: “what about… [random list of names]
DAR
Why don’t you just read names from the phone book? You seem to have this idea that making a claim is the same as demonstrating something. There is a difference. And when you are starting from your deficit of credibility you have to work a little harder to get your assertions off the ground.
When I give examples, they are referenced and I can back them up. You should try my method.
D.
As a good liar knows (Hussein’s specialty), if you have no valid reason, lie about it- use a teleprompter- lie some more, and hope people will believe you. This was political, plain and simple- Hussein couldn’t have a friend of his tied to a “community organization”, oh no- that’s too close to home- someone might think Barama is crooked- What? A political hack from Chicago- CROOKED? oh what is the world coming to?
Walpin was truly fired for reporting ethical lapses on the part of a Hussein supporter, and questionable activities on the part of Americorps, an ACORN-like “community organizing” group that has been questionable in their financial dealings.
It was a purely political thing, and I hope Walpin kept his notes, because I cant wait for one of these dishonest scandals to tie itself to Barama and bring him down. I mean Biden is bad, but he is so dumb you have to hand feed him, so perhaps he would do less damage.
Ido know in his interview, he was anything but confused- I smell a liberal lie.
Republicans have nothing on ACORN. They hate it, with a passion, for one reason only. It gets more people voting and participating in democracy. And when more people vote and participate in democracy, republicans lose.
Welcome to the future. Republicans, losing. Oh, I repeated myself.
D.
ps. It’s the same reason they fought motor-voter registration.
————–
“Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life.”
—George W. Bush, Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004
Oh there’s evidence mounting against ACORN-it might take time, but we will tear down that rat infested eyesore, and let the light of day into that moral sewer.
Facists hate it when people vote. Makes them furious!
You are the fascists here- get your definitions straight, WE must be doing some good when you all begin foaming at the mouth.
Yea, I feel great knowing Mickey Mouse is registered, and there are some people registered 72 times- yea, that’s a real good job- “it gets more people voting…” fraudulently, but you do not care about that do you, waterboy?
BLK: “I feel great knowing Mickey Mouse is registered, and there are some people registered 72 times…”>>
DAR
It’s like taking candy from a baby. 1,2,3.
1) “Mickey Mouse” didn’t get “registered”
2) “Mickey Mouse” didn’t vote.
3) No one was registered “72 times”
So no infraction occurred and the system operated as it is supposed to.
In any petition drive (which is similar) it is normal for a large percentage (even 20-30%) of the signatures to be disqualified. Who disqualifies them in the above instances? *Not ACORN.* That’s not their job, nor should it be. They are prohibited from that. Now that would be an infraction!
Perhaps you should make yourself aware of these issues before you comment and avoid making a fool of yourself?
D.
————-
Or not.
Darry- blindly refuting something we can do all day, as evidenced by your comments. Even the “challenged” can do this, as can tell from your comments.
1)- yes
2)- yes
3)-definitely yes.
BLK: “Walpin was truly fired for reporting ethical lapses”>>
DAR
Actually, he wasn’t just fired for being incompetent and confused.
More:
“Since Gerald Walpin was fired from his position as inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service last week, conservatives and Fox News hosts have claimed that he was removed for investigating an Obama ally. The White House has since provided a list of reasons for Walpin’s termination, including but not limited to the corporation board’s concerns over Walpin’s behavior and conduct, as well as a complaint filed by acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of California Lawrence G. Brown regarding Walpin’s actions during his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps grants given to a nonprofit organization in Sacramento, California.
…Specifically, that Walpin and his staff “did not include” or “disclose” relevant information regarding the case involving the misuse of AmeriCorps to Brown’s office; that Walpin repeatedly discussed the case in the press after being advised “under no circumstance was he to communicate with the media about a matter under investigation”; and that Walpin’s “actions were hindering our investigation and handling of this matter.”
LINK
Time to put him out to pasture, as we say.
The Alinsky plan. Build a financial support system, collapse to economy and rebuild with the Socialist money that is there. ACORN, Americorps, and the backer like Soros are working toward that.
They need the guns first because they will be the first to go after the collapse.
Oh God, get the tinfoil out boys. You forgot to mention the One World Government and the New World Order…
Didn’t have to – you did that— No one in their right mind thinks that there can be one world except perhaps John Lennon, and as we all know, he lost his mind. There’s too much animosity, both regional and religious to ever have that, but it doesn’t stop the socialists who think they are owed a living and want to bring everyone down to their level. We will be a third- world country before long, and when we are, we will soon be speaking Chinese, because your ilk will have stripped the Armed Forces of any capability to fight back.
Blake, well said!!!
It’s about time someone spoke the truth about where our country is headed.
God, I hope a miracle prevents us from becoming a Saul Alinsky utopia.
Darrel, One instance of alleged confusion is not grounds for firing. First of all we only have the Obamabots word for it. Second of all, anyone can have a bad day and one instance is not a reason to fire. Anyone who thinks that is a moron but if it is the case then Gibbs should have been gone long ago. Also, there have been questions that Obama stammered over and was incoherent with the uhs and long pauses. Should he be fired as well?
BIGD: “we only have the Obamabots word for it.”>>
DAR
No, we have the unanimous consensus of the board. These are people that were there *before* Obama.
BIGD: “there have been questions Obama stammered over and was incoherent”>>
DAR
You guys complain, falsely, that people consider him a god on earth, yet when he falls short of being a god (and thinks about a question) you criticize him. So it is really you guys who hold him to some otherworldly standard.
Give me an example of Obama being “incoherent.”
D.
—————–
“The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they’ve, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they’re universal values, they’re not American values or, you know — European values, they’re universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere.”
—George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005
Darrel, I do not admit that it is a good reason to fire, I admit it is a good story for them to use as cover for breaking the law.
A lawsuit will follow.
The lawsuit will fail.
Motor voter allows people who are not citizens to register to vote. That is why it is opposed. ACORN registers people who are not eligible to vote.
Follow the law.
BigD: “Motor voter allows people who are not citizens to register to vote.”>>
DAR
Absolutely false. The four aims of the law are as follows:
***
“Congress succinctly stated the aims of the law:
* to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;
* to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this Act in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office;
* to protect the integrity of the electoral process;
* to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.
***
Note: “eligible citizens.” Your charge is absurd.
BIGD: “ACORN registers people who are not eligible to vote.>>
DAR
No they don’t. They are required to submit all registrations. Bogus submissions are set aside and culled later by authorities. It’s not ACORN’s job to cherry pick, for obvious reasons. Exactly 100% of the substantive type claims made against ACORN, made by you, republicans and FOX news types in general are complete half baked rubbish from top to bottom. I haven’t seen a single example stick. Not one charge of substance. Nothing.
This is all, embarrassingly pathetic rightwing lies and it was nicely dismantled in this full page, easy to read ad in the NYT’s:
http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ads_fraud
D.
And those Obama appointees are not cronies, many from Chicago. Incompetent? You can point to many incompetent Obama appointees. Some did not even make it because of incompetence.
Being from Chicago, a city of 9.5 million, makes them guilty of something? Talk about guilt by association with a broad brush! Two fallacies in one sentence. Good job!
Bigd: “You can point to many incompetent Obama appointees.>>
DAR
Well I suppose you could, but why bother to go to all that work when you can just say you can do it rather than *actually* doing it?
BIGD: “Some did not even make it because of incompetence.”>>
DAR
You make a good point. Thanks for pointing out that Obama has very high standards. Undeniably higher than Bush. This resulted in some who “did not even make it,” because of his high standards.
D.
——————
Statement of Norm Ornstein
American Enterprise Institute
“This ethics policy [Obama’s lobbyist rules] for the transition is a far-reaching, bold and constructive step to do just that. The policy may exclude some good people with deep experience in their fields, but it will also exclude those who see government service as a springboard to financial success, or who are more intent on pleasing future potential employers or clients than making tough choices in the public interest. As much as anything, this ethics policy is a statement about the tone and tenor of the Obama administration. It is a good sign.”
And that from the rightwing American Enterprise think tank
Assuming the trumped up list of reasons is valid Obama DID NOT follow the law in the firing of him. He was supposed to take it to Congress and it had special procedures to follow. He did not do that. So even if, and it is a big if, all the accusations are true Obama still failed to follow the law.
I know you have a hard time understanding this but he did not follow the law. If he had followed the law there might not be a problem but now it looks political (and more than likely was).
Bigd; “He was supposed to take it to Congress and it had special procedures to follow. He did not do that.”>>
DAR
Bah. Note:
“Grassley [the fellow complaining] had written Obama a letter pointing to a law requiring that Congress be given the reasons an inspector general is fired. He cited a Senate report saying the requirement is designed to ensure that inspectors general are not removed for political reasons.”
He’s been fired, which is Obama’s option, and Congress has been given it’s list of reasons why he was fired. I agree with the law. Show that the law requires that the reasons must be submitted in advance.
D.
Darrel, I don’t care what the INTENT of motor voter was, it all looks good on paper. I am telling you that motor voter allows people who are not citizens to register to vote. I have seen it in Maryland.
No one asked me for any proof of citizenship when I renewed and they asked me if I wanted to register to vote. No one asked any of the Mexicans in line to get licenses for any proof of anything when they were applying for licenses and when they were sent to the voter person who handed them a form and told them to fill it out and sign it.
The fact is illegals use the lax rules on obtaining licenses to get registered to vote. I have seen it and yes I knew some of the people were illegals.
ACORN is under indictment for a number of things. We also would like to know where the millions that were embezzled went, who paid it back to cover it up and why the law did not investigate it.
I don’t believe you.
Such a pouting, childish argument.
Try a little unbiased research if you can.
BLK: “Such a pouting, childish argument.”
DAR
“I don’t believe you” is not an argument but rather a statement of my perspective in response to unverifiable anecdotes passed along from an extremely biased person.
Poor Blake, you don’t even know what an argument is or looks like.
D.
I can tell from your comments what pouting and childish are- I assumed that that was the extent of any argument you wished to make, thus the argument” comment.
Darrel, you are a joke. You defend Obama and tell absolute lies like it is his great process that weeded out bad choices. No, if he had properly vetted people like Geithner and Daschle would never have been nominated (with a few other tax cheats) and Geithner never would have made it.
Incompetent: Gibbsm Geithner, Holder, Napolitano, Panetta (never had anything to do with intelligence) and though not appointed, Joe Biden.
And to put up the quote about lobbyists as if it means something. Obama issued waivers the day he signed the no lobbyist memo and has, what 30 or so working for him. He is full of crap. Transparency? Blew that all to hell.
You are the water boy for Obama.
You make claims but you back nothing up. Nothing. You don’t even know how to begin. Boring.
Try backing a claim up. Just one. See how it holds up.
Dog just made the arguments you will not respond to- you lose right out of the gate.
Blake, asserting:
“Incompetent:…[list of names]”
Is *not* an argument.
I’ve already covered his stricter lobbyist rules. You know, if you fellows actually cared about the issue rather than your blind devotion to attempt to bash anything Obama, you might admit that it is actually something good he has done. As even those on the right have acknowledged, and I have cited, his rules are far stricter than GW’s.
But you would have to stop hyperventilating a moment to admit that. You would have to be open to reason. And as Thomas Paine once said regarding people who refuse to reason:
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
D.
BIGD: “You defend Obama and tell absolute lies”
DAR
Let’s see one of these “absolute lies.” Care to back that up? Didn’t think so.
Geithner wasn’t a tax cheat, ask Orrin Hatch. I’ve got the roast ready to go if you want to try and defend that one.
Daschle screwed up, and yes, Obama’s high standards kept him out.
D.
Geithner was a tax cheat. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but he willfully disregarded the notes he was given telling him about his tax liability, and spent the money they gave him to pay his taxes with. It doesn’t get any more ignorant than that unless you are Darrel.
He went by the numbers his tax accountant gave him, which is what I do. Does that make a person a tax cheat? I don’t think so, and neither did the senate.
Anyway, it’s all nicely roasted here if you have the balls to read it.
D.
Roast this, roast that, you are so one dimensional its pitiful, really- I notice that when your arguments get really, really weak that you resort to bragging, as if that is all you have left. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that you are a total fake, not who you say you are, but are really still living in your parent’s basement, sucking money off of the government.
Your arguments, when not outright lies, are so biased that one cannot take them seriously.
Roast that.
BLK: “Roast that.”
DAR
Some things don’t rise to the level of being roastable. There needs to be a little substance. So the roast of your comment here consists of pointing out, there is no substance.
Oh, and apparently, you don’t have the balls to read it, or respond to it substantively. You resort to your same knee jerk insults based upon conjecture. Boring.
Regarding me being a “fake.” I make no claims that cannot be easily backed up regarding myself or anything else. I hesitate to say more about my businesses or myself for three reasons:
1) It’s an irrelevant distraction.
2) You would just try to use the information to fashion more insults.
3) You would accuse me of bragging (see #2).
D.
Darrel, the law that deals with IG firings is Public Law 110-409 The Inspector General Reform Act of 2008. The pertinent part reads:
Section 3(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking the second sentence and inserting “If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.”.
Pretty sure that means BEFORE he fires him. Is that clear enough for you? Obama broke the law.
You can find it here and you will also see that Obama was a cosponsor.
DAR
Good job. Good to see you are trying. That makes it more fun. I think you may have him on a technicality! He hasn’t studied this 1978 law and he, or someone else, made a boo.
So now what happens? The guy is still fired, that’s for sure. As you have acknowledged, he serves at the presidents pleasure. This law is there to keep funny business from happening and to allow independent oversight. So, they can pay the guy for a month (he’ll probably have a nice severance package anyway), Congress will be able to look at it and have its proper oversight either way (McCaskill already asked, received and was satisfied with the reasons given). And next time, they’ll give more notice and the guy will have a little longer to pack his desk up.
Tiny little law breaker!
D.
——————-
Good job. No really. Keep it up.
McCaskill asking for the reasons and being “satisfied” with the explainations is ridiculous-
The Administration Investigates Itself and Finds Nothing Wrong- what a headline that would be.
Nixon says There Was No Break-in; The People Believe.
Carter Discovers Manhood.
Clinton Was Faithful.
All headline in your fantasy world, all false, but not to you- who truly wears the tin foil hats here?
Oh, the unanimous consensus of the board also includes:
“Alan Solomont, a Democrat and the board chairman of the government-run corporation, and Stephen Goldsmith, a Republican and the board’s vice chair, said they strongly endorsed Obama’s decision.” –ibid
The details of his mistakes in judgment will be reviewed by those in Congress who have questions (they’ve already been carefully reviewed by the administration), and then his replacement will take over.
D.
Obama at G20:
Nick Robinson: “A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn’t the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?” Brown immediately swivels to leave Obama in pole position. There is a four-second delay before Obama starts speaking
Barack Obama: “I, I, would say that, er … pause if you look at … pause the, the sources of this crisis … pause the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system … pause, I think what is also true is that … pause here in Great Britain … pause here in continental Europe … pause around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er … pause the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged … pause. So at this point, I’m less interested in … pause identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we’ve taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, er, dealing with the enormous, er … pause drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we’ve got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there’s a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what’s the risk involved, what’s the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think … pause there’s enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er … pause I’m a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.
Now that was coherent and answered the question completely.
British source with interpretation
BIGD: “British source with interpretation”
DAR
Actually, I’ve seen this before and we roasted it on our forum months ago.
And by roast what I mean is, we simply pointed out that it is a sarcastic comedy bit, completely made up. Perhaps you should read your CRAP more carefully so you don’t make a fool of yourself.
“John Crace decodes what he was really thinking…”
That is, the guy made this up, the inserted comments and pauses, so right wing fools can pass this junk around and think they are saying something intelligent. But they are not.
The guy inserted a bunch of junk that Obama never said, including the pauses (most of it so crude you wouldn’t even quote it). Complete garbage. Try to be a little more discerning next time!
D.
Actually, he did not make up the pauses, he just inserted his comedy comments wherever the pauses were, ( and God, there were a LOT of them, weren’t there?)
When you are quoting someone you don’t prove anything by dishonestly inserting a bunch of comments the person didn’t make and then sprinkling the word “pause” *fourteen times* into the body of their text.
If I ever did that with a Bush quote you would scream and quite rightly dismiss it as garbage. But I would never be so foolish. I have never inserted the word “pause” or anything else into a Bush quote, I just quote him word, for, word.
When asked for an example of Obama saying something this is what we get? A ridiculous example of blatant dishonesty.
Here is what Obama actually said, minus the garbage:
***
“I would say that if you look at the sources of this crisis, the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system. I think what is also true is that here in Great Britain, here in continental Europe, around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and the highly integrated global capital markets that have emerged. So at this point, I’m less interested in identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we’ve taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, dealing with the enormous drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we’ve got a set of regulations that are up to the task and that includes a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there’s a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what’s the risk involved, what’s the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, between countries so we can anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think there’s enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and I’m a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.”
DAR
On the fly, off the cuff, no teleprompter.
As SAV noted in our form at the time:
“Now there’s a response that GWB couldn’t have put together for a scripted news conference with a year to plan.”
D.
Wow- the way you write it doesn’t show when he paused out of confusion because he had no tele prompter- it just seems as if he was actually being coherent.
When you “sprinkle the word pause” into his speech, you are indicating his inability to speak a coherent sentence without visual aids- and it is more truthful than your version.
BLK: “the way you write it doesn’t show when he paused out of confusion…”>>
DAR
Show he paused out of confusion. Show he paused. Where’s the video? What Bigd quoted is a doctored, comedic, hit piece filled with insertions and thus has no credibility. I asked for an example of Obama speaking incoherently, not an example of Obama not speaking quick enough.
The suggestion that Obama has any trouble speaking just makes you look foolish. Ask Hillary or McCain about his communication skills.
D.
After all, The Guardian is a Hussein acolyte.
Darrel, there are plenty of questionable things in Michelle and Barack’s past.
This may give you some clue.
http://www.theobamafile.com
And this is not propaganda either.
If none of this gives you any concern, then you are just one of those many Obama supporters who think Obama can do now wrong.
Educate yourself.
Thanks Lonnie, I’ll certainly check it out.
Oh, that didn’t take long. It’s hard to find a true sentence. That’s a very bad sign.
Example:
“He is not now, nor ever has been, a “natural born citizen” — he was, at birth, a British subject and citizen of Kenya — this fact is published on his own website.”
What is the basis for the claim that he is “not a natural born citizen”?
So this is the “birther” nonsense.
Then he says: “I’ve read everything I could get my hands on about this guy in the last two years and I know less about him now than I did at the beginning.”
Who believes that? Why would someone say something so foolish and so false?
Then we get: “Obama has managed to live for 48 years without leaving any footprints — none! There is no Obama documentation — no records — no bona fides — no paper trail — nothing! –…”
Lonnie, if you would like to defend any of the silliness on that page, I will be glad to provide a substantive rebuttal to any of it. It’s delusional. I just read a bit more. I would be surprised if you could find a sentence of substance that actually is true on that page.
Perhaps select some of the material you think is strongest or most concerning to you. Post it here or feel free to post it in our freethinker forum.
Thanks for the link.
D.
The site takes days to go through so I will assume that you saw one unfavorable thing about the Obamas and used that for your argument as to why you think they are lies.
Typical Obama bot who is easy to figure out.
Everything I looked at was rubbish. Laughable. Awful. Again I offer:
“Perhaps select some of the material you think is strongest or most concerning to you. Post it here or feel free to post it in our freethinker forum.”
Lonnie, I’ve been a debunker/skeptic for a very long time. One develops a good detector for BS over the decades. I knew what was going on at that site in 30 seconds. I gave you a three simple examples. Pick your strongest stuff, and I’ll take the time to investigate if there could possibly be anything to it.
I agree, there is a *a lot* of stuff there. Don’t be fooled by quantity. When someone is busted, this badly, on their front page in their very first few sentences, it’s a very big red flag. It’s unlikely to get better.
Maybe I’m wrong.
D.
Watch the video, the pauses are there.
What video? You provide no link.
I consider it a plus that a person pauses to make sure they are speaking correctly. You don’t put the word ‘pause’ into the text of their comment. That’s ridiculous.
I asked you for an example of Obama saying something “incoherent.” Your example is dishonest and it fails completely as a supposed example of him failing to articulate him self correctly.
D.
Dar:
That makes it more fun. I think you may have him on a technicality! He hasn’t studied this 1978 law and he, or someone else, made a boo. So now what happens? The guy is still fired, that’s for sure.
The law was updated in 2008 and Obama was a cosponsor. He should have been familiar or are you saying he cosponsors laws he does not read?
It was not legitimate to fire him.
Bigd: “are you saying he cosponsors laws he does not read?”
DAR
Yes, of course. A staffer may read it and regardless, he would hardly be memorizing each law anyway.
Administrations do *a lot of things* every day. Sometimes they take an action that is not in full compliance with some tiny law buried in the millions if not billions of lines of law code on the books. When this happens, as it does with all administrations, they take action to get into compliance with the law. I don’t know what that would involve in this case but it will hardly change the fact that Walpin is now retired from his position, and with good reason.
The allegations of his wrong doing are serious and substantial. I encourage you to read about them. He is toast, 30 days, or not.
D.
Geithner did not pay his taxes when he was fgiven the stipend to do so. He is a tax cheat regardless of what anyone says. If I did what he did I would be paying through my nose and maybe in jail.
Obama’s high standards did not keep Daschle out. Obama said he still wanted him. Daschle withdrew because he did not want more scrutiny.
You are the Obama water boy.
Bigd: “Geithner”
DAR
All nicely roasted, with references, in this thread. You got nothing on him. But it is complicated to unpack.
Obama wanted Daschle because of his healthcare expertise and connections. But he didn’t meet Obama’s high standards and was forced to withdraw.
Regarding water boys, if I carry a thimble for Obama, you carry a fire hose as you prostitute yourself, shamelessly, for the far right. In the end, you are just found to be all wet.
I follow the truth where ever it leads. If your arguments are persuasive and hold up to scrutiny, I will quickly adopt them for myself.
Jefferson once said: “There is not a truth existing which I fear… or would wish unknown to the whole world.”
Can you say the same? No, you are terrified of considering truths (evolution etc.) which contradict ideologies that you are heavily invested in.
D.
Nothing you Fay people do is roasting. The issue you took to them about wars you asked the wrong question so got the answer you wanted. Geithner was told he had to pay taxes on the money and he did not pay them. He is a tax cheat.
It is very simple. If my accountant told me one thing and I listened and it was wrong, the IRS would still make me pay penalties and interest.
Geithner signed papers saying he knew his stipend was to pay taxes and he did not pay them. Plus, Geithner said he used Turbo Tax so which is it, accountant or TT?
He is a tax cheat. The Senate approving a person does not mean they are approving of what they have done. It was important for Obama to get him through or he would suffer an early setback.
BIGD: Geithner was told he had to pay taxes on the money and he did not pay them.”>>
DAR
He’s paid all of his taxes.
BIGD: If my accountant told me one thing and I listened and it was wrong, the IRS would still make me pay penalties and interest.>>
DAR
And he paid his taxes, and penalties and interest, as I did last year. This is very normal and happens to everyone who has taxes complicated enough to need an accountant.
BIGD: Geithner said he used Turbo Tax so which is it, accountant or TT?>>
DAR
Both. He used turbo tax and later when his taxes were reviewed by an accountant, the accountant did not catch the error.
Obama’s careful team caught the error. As an article in The Atlantic pointed out:
“The error was discovered by Obama’s meticulous vetting team on November 21, even as it slipped by an accountant that Geithner had employed to figure this out.”
Note:
“Geithner and his supporters have said his mistake was a common one for people hired by international organizations that don’t pay the employer share of Social Security taxes. The IRS estimated in 2007 that as many as *half* those employees had made tax-filing mistakes, and offered a group settlement to let them correct the errors. Geithner told Obama’s team and senators that an accountant had reviewed his tax returns after Geithner prepared them and didn’t discover the problem.” –ibid
As an accountant noted on our forum when this came up:
“It’s a very common mistake. With over 20,000 pages of tax codes I consider there is no such thing as a correct tax return. So does the IRS.”
So this is once again, much ado about nothing. You got nothing on Geithner. That’s why he sailed through and this flap lasted a week.
D.
——————-
Another prominent Republican,… spoke up for Geithner. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch,… said he continues to support the nominee.
“I have no problem,” Hatch told Fox News. “He’s a very, very competent guy.” –ibid
You put the uhs and ums in Bush quotes all the time. The MSM routinely removes the stammers of Obama when it quotes him. However, there is nothing wrong with quoting him and putting in the pauses and the uhs and ums. The person added stuff for commentary but Obama was full of pauses because he was trying to think of something to say and he was incoherent.
He should be fired.
“Uhs,” and “ums” are part of the speech and can be included.
Your citation has none of those.
Arbitrarily putting in pauses (14 in one paragraph) with no regard to how long they are is obviously, ridiculous, bias. Any child can see this.
The fact that you would have to reach for this ridiculous, comedic, peace of garbage as an example of something supposedly “incoherent” from Obama just shows how completely bankrupt your claim is.
BIGD: “He should be fired.”
DAR
McCain just said today that Obama has “done well.” I’ll take his word over yours.
D.
Post it somewhere else. This is a blog not a bulletin board.
He was not coherent. It was not dishonest.
There have been plenty of clips of him giving non answers. Clue, look at the ones where there is no teleprompter.
There was a video on that web page.
I see no video at that web page.
Darrel sees nothing he doesn’t want to see- you can’t convince a true believer- he has substituted Barama as his god, so now he has something to worship. When someone sneezes, he says,” Obama bless you.”
There, is, no, video.
So you got nothing.
Actually, someone on our forum called me an “Obama hater” because criticized something he did. Nuts to my right, nuts to my left.
Me? Independent and right down the middle.
D.
The allegations are trumped up. He has had a good career and never had this kind of complaint before. One instance does not mean he should be fired. Suppose he had low blood sugar. Then he could not be fired for a medical condition.
This is wrong. Obama wanted an honest man with lots of integrity away from his corrupt friends.
That is the bottom line.
No Darrel, you do not follow the truth. You twist events or words and then you tell us what YOUR truth is. You don’t change your mind because you have determined what the truth is in your mind and you do not listen to anyone else’s words, points, or facts. You call them lies and move on.
To be honest, you are beginning to get tiresome. I am tired of reading what you write. It is nothing more than links to left wing sites and your group who you think has all the answers.
Why don’t you go back there and talk to them. You are not achieving anything by being here.
You have never, not once, given an example of me supposedly “twist[ing] events or words.”
Not once.
You don’t do this, because you cannot.
McCain said he would be a better president than Obama. You did not listen then and you probably gave no thought to much of what he said.
You can say what you want about it. He was incoherent and the video makes it obvious. He is evasive in a number of videos and makes little sense.
Gibbs is incoherent each day. Will you call for him to be fired?
I am becoming bored with you. Comment as you wish but I am not going to spend my time going back and forth. In the last 3 days I have had far too many comments to deal with. Comment or not but I am not going to answer them.
I am tired of reading the same things from you over and over with long winded quotes or cut and pastes which obfuscate the issue.
McCain said exactly what I quoted him saying.
You have provided no video or link to a video.
You have no example of Gibbs being supposedly “incoherent” just as you have no example of Obama being incoherent.
If you have an honest example, why won’t you share it?
D.
Gibbs was born incoherent- if you can’t see it then you ARE a true believer.
You twisted my words about military health care and said I stated that the VA care was the best in the world when I did not say that.
Already dealt with in that thread. Every comment in the thread you made your comment in, as it regarded military, and medicine, was about the VA. Regardless, both systems are 100% government run medicine and 100% socialized medicine.
D.
Have you ever watched Gibbs in a press conference? He babbles and is incoherent with stammers and pauses then he has no answer.
I showed a link of Obama being incoherent. Continually saying it does not make it so but you can continue.
I’m not crazy about Gibbs. I think he’s a little too easy going.
What link of Obama “being incoherent?” There is no video at the link you provided and the doctored citation with the 14 “pauses” sprinkled throughout and crude insertions accomplishes nothing for you. When that junk is removed, Obama’s comments stand as perfectly cogent.
Sometimes Obama pauses when he speaks. He’s a professor. This has nothing to do with “being incoherent.”
Each year they published a calendar with Bush saying something stupid, every day of the year. Someone gave me one as a present. Do you think they will be making such calendar for Obama? No, I don’t think so.
Perhaps Bush could have benefited a little from more “pauses.”
D.
——————–
“Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That’s a personal opinion. That’s not what the constitution says. The constitution of the United States says we’re all — you know, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t speak to the equality of America.”
—George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004
To argue with Darrel is pointless.
He won’t see anything in a rational manner and will only protect Obama at any cost.
If you’ve got anything substantive on Obama, PLEASE don’t hesitate to share it.
Regarding the link you gave above, you have my offer. Pick as many examples as you like.
Except the birther stuff. I can’t take that seriously.
D.
———————
“Seriously, in the “youth books” aisle Obama was right next to Star Wars. Star Wars!
Unreal.
Hitlerian, in fact.”
–Quote from your link, Saturday
There is definitely no denying anything that is on that site, and here’s a question for you Darrel.
If the obamafile website is supposedly not true, then why was it selected for inclusion in the United States Library of Congress?
Lonnie, I assure you that the Library of Congress has a vast wing devoted to fiction.
They don’t censor for “truth.” All books published by major (and even minor) publishing houses are archived in the Library of Congress. A friend of mine wrote a book about atheism (Atheism: A short Introduction) and it is in the “Library of Congress,” this doesn’t mean his book is true or any more likely to be true. I have photographs preserved in “The Library of Congress,” etc.,.
For instance, I, or someone else, could contact this webcapture portion of the Library of Congress and recommend our Fayetteville Freethinker site be considered for inclusion (which is probably what happened in this Obamafile case). Acceptance would not make the material any more true. They might send me a letter like the fellow from “obamafile.com” site says he received.
If you would like to see how their material holds up, take me up on my offer.
Incidentally, I went to the Library of Congress, from the link at your obamafile.com site and I searched their digital archives, which includes their online, digital and webpage records. I searched for “obamafile.com.” The result was as follows:
***
“You Searched For: obamafile.com
There were no results for this search”
***
Safe to say, the obamafile.com people are not included in the “Library of Congress” record system. Why? Two reasons come to mind:
1) A search of the L of C finds nothing
2) If they were there, the folks at obamafile.com would probably provide a direct link to it.
Not that it would matter if it did exist, for the reasons given above.
D.
Oh, I see I didn’t get their name exactly right. Searching for “theobamafile.com” had the same result. No hits.
See if you can find them:
http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html
D.