• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Dax01 said:
Dunno if I agree with it – he does put up a pretty good argument – but it's good to see Obama defend his decision to assassinate Awlaki. Wish he had done this a long time ago.
Click to expand...

He did...

Here's what typically happens:


A memo explaining events, the circumstances, the actions taken, and the justifications gets sent to congress, or briefed to the press, by the executive branch.


The Press then takes everything that was said, throws it out, and reports on the basic talking point: (American killed by drones, in this case).

If you caught the "breaking news" article written by CNN yesterday about the 4 americans being killed by dornes strikes, the original text of it was essentially this:

"Washington (CNN) -- Counterterrorism drone strikes have killed four Americans overseas since 2009, the U.S. government acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday,

Read the full letter"


Since then, it has quietly been updated to have more substance, but the original article basically didn't say shit (If you read the actual letter you'll see just how little substance there was to the reporting).


There have been quiet reports, memos, investigations for years now, and the press rarely reports on it even though they attend the damn conferences. All they do is report sensationalist stuff.

Happened with the health care debate. Obama would be constantly having conferences and meetings that weren't reported on, and then liberals would say "WHY ISN'T OBAMA TRYING TO GET THE WORD OUT?!"

Doesn't matter how much you try if what you say doesn't get further disseminated to the public by the media.
 
I

ISOM

Member
GaimeGuy said:
He did...

Here's what typically happens:


A memo explaining events, the circumstances, the actions taken, and the justifications gets sent to congress, or briefed to the press, by the executive branch.


The Press then takes everything that was said, throws it out, and reports on the basic talking point: (American killed by drones, in this case).

If you caught the "breaking news" article written by CNN yesterday about the 4 americans being killed by dornes strikes, the original text of it was essentially this:

"Washington (CNN) -- Counterterrorism drone strikes have killed four Americans overseas since 2009, the U.S. government acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday,

Read the full letter"


Since then, it has quietly been updated to have more substance, but the original article basically didn't say shit (If you read the actual letter you'll see just how little substance there was to the reporting).


There have been quiet reports, memos, investigations for years now, and the press rarely reports on it even though they attend the damn conferences. All they do is report sensationalist stuff.

Happened with the health care debate. Obama would be constantly having conferences and meetings that weren't reported on, and then liberals would say "WHY ISN'T OBAMA TRYING TO GET THE WORD OUT?!"

Doesn't matter how much you try if what you say doesn't get further disseminated to the public by the media.
Click to expand...

It's exactly why Obama doesn't like the press and then the press complain about obama not liking them and being secretive.

Well of course he would be secretive when you sensationalize everything he says and doesn't report everything factually.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
empty vessel said:
Is it worse elsewhere? I don't know that I see right-wing think tanks and pundits represented anywhere nearly as well as they are on NPR, with the possible exception of Fox News. Admittedly I don't watch/listen to a lot of media.
Click to expand...
Less in quantity of representation and more in how they are represented.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
sillymonkey321 said:
Fox news immediately all over his butt about wanting to shut down GITMO. Can Obama shut it down without GOP support? He's not going to get it.
Click to expand...

I guess they missed the fact that congress made it illegal to use funds to close GITMO or transfer detainees to the civilian court system.

It's ILLEGAL for Obama to close Gitmo.
 
J

Jooney

Member
GaimeGuy said:
I guess they missed the fact that congress made it illegal to use funds to close GITMO or transfer detainees to the civilian court system.

It's ILLEGAL for Obama to close Gitmo.
Click to expand...

Illegal? As in, only congress can close and transfer detainees out of gitmo ? Does the Executive have any power here, but just won't use it?
 
B

Blergmeister

Member
Jooney said:
Illegal? As in, only congress can close and transfer detainees out of gitmo ? Does the Executive have any power here, but just won't use it?
Click to expand...

From what I understand, Congress explicitely passed a law related to the closing of GTMO such that the President cannot do it (until Congress passes a law allowing it). I think the law specifies limits on funding for closing it down and limits on what Obama can do with prisoners. Obama can do things around the edges, as the executive manages the prison, but he can't outright close it down.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Link said:
If it weren't for gerrymandering, sure.
Click to expand...
If you gave every House Democrat in 2012 five extra points, Pelosi would be Speaker right now. Obviously the gain wouldn't be universal, but winning the generic ballot by eight points would probably be enough that it wouldn't matter.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Blergmeister said:
From what I understand, Congress explicitely passed a law related to the closing of GTMO such that the President cannot do it (until Congress passes a law allowing it). I think the law specifies limits on funding for closing it down and limits on what Obama can do with prisoners. Obama can do things around the edges, as the executive manages the prison, but he can't outright close it down.
Click to expand...

Yep.


After he ordered it closed, Congress made it illegal to use any money to close the facility or transfer its inmates to the civilian system.

It would be a fraudulent use of federal funds for obama to order it closed. He, and every person under him who aided in the closing, would be facing felony charges and years behind bars, and guantanemo would remain open.

Obama tried to close it, and then was forbidden from doing so. It was one of his first acts as president, actually.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/closure-guantanamo-detention-facilities

(Jan 22. Inauguration date was Jan 20)


Congress controls the purse strings so it's well within their right to make it illegal to use funds for it. And you have to charge labor somewhere. If federal workers help close guantanamo, well, they have to charge the work they did to something, right? They can't charge it to closing guantanamo. Which means they'd have to charge it to something else. Which means they'd have to commit fraud.
 
K

Karakand

Member
O

Owzers

Member
GaimeGuy said:
Yep.


After he ordered it closed, Congress made it illegal to use any money to close the facility or transfer its inmates to the civilian system.

It would be a fraudulent use of federal funds for obama to order it closed. He, and every person under him who aided in the closing, would be facing felony charges and years behind bars, and guantanemo would remain open.

Obama tried to close it, and then was forbidden from doing so. It was one of his first acts as president, actually.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/closure-guantanamo-detention-facilities

(Jan 22. Inauguration date was Jan 20)


Congress controls the purse strings so it's well within their right to make it illegal to use funds for it. And you have to charge labor somewhere. If federal workers help close guantanamo, well, they have to charge the work they did to something, right? They can't charge it to closing guantanamo. Which means they'd have to charge it to something else. Which means they'd have to commit fraud.
Click to expand...

Far too often on cable news i hear " If Obama wanted Gitmo closed, he'd close it"
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Dax01 said:
I'm going to love following Weiner's coverage in the coming campaign.
Click to expand...
Fan of the Weiner, are you? Are you expecting some good photos? He's certainly got a lot of exposure in the past.

You know, it is going to be impossible to discuss his campaign without accidentally making jokes.
 
C

Crisco

Banned
sillymonkey321 said:
Far too often on cable news i hear " If Obama wanted Gitmo closed, he'd close it"
Click to expand...

I mean, it's true, he could just do it. It would be illegal but I mean, he's the President, wtf are they going to do? Impeach him? Would never happen over gitmo. So technically, they are right, but it's ignoring Congress's role in making it legally challenging.
 
J

Jooney

Member
GaimeGuy said:
Yep.


After he ordered it closed, Congress made it illegal to use any money to close the facility or transfer its inmates to the civilian system.

It would be a fraudulent use of federal funds for obama to order it closed. He, and every person under him who aided in the closing, would be facing felony charges and years behind bars, and guantanemo would remain open.

Obama tried to close it, and then was forbidden from doing so. It was one of his first acts as president, actually.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/closure-guantanamo-detention-facilities

(Jan 22. Inauguration date was Jan 20)


Congress controls the purse strings so it's well within their right to make it illegal to use funds for it. And you have to charge labor somewhere. If federal workers help close guantanamo, well, they have to charge the work they did to something, right? They can't charge it to closing guantanamo. Which means they'd have to charge it to something else. Which means they'd have to commit fraud.
Click to expand...

Wait, are you saying a dem-controlled House and Senate made it illegal for the President to close Gitmo? Or at least, a house-controlled Senate went along with a GOP proposal to close it down?

Oh no wait, it's from the NDAA.

The relevant law is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). This statute confirms the president’s power to wage war against al-Qaida and its associates, which was initially given to him in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed shortly after 9/11. The NDAA also authorizes the president to detain enemy combatants, and bans him from transferring Guantanamo detainees to American soil.

The NDAA does not, however, ban the president from releasing detainees. Section 1028 authorizes him to release them to foreign countries that will accept them—the problem is that most countries won’t, and others, like Yemen, where about 90 of the 166 detainees are from, can’t guarantee that they will maintain control over detainees, as required by the law.
Click to expand...

Slate
 
E

el retorno

Member
The NRA's favorite Movie is.....

Red Dawn




I'm shocked

and lol
The Cold War era “Red Dawn” was the story of a conventionally fought World War III, featuring some of the most popular actors of the time. The theme of a potential Soviet invasion resonated deeply with the American public, especially gun owners as it portrayed a small group of determined Americans standing up for freedom against all odds. It also demonstrated human resilience and emphasized the Second Amendment by featuring a bumper sticker that stated: “They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.”

“Red Dawn” featured a variety of firearms from behind the Iron Curtain, such as the AKM, an updated version of the AK-47—most were mocked-up versions because true versions were unavailable—and a Tokarev TT-33 pistol, the movie also exhibited numerous American classics like the Colt Single Action Army, the Ruger 77, Ruger Mini 14 and the M1911A1.

Up until the fall of the Berlin wall, many folks prepared for a possible invasion by what Ronald Reagan called the “Evil Empire.” This movie emphasized that Americans fought, and would fight again, for their freedoms.
Click to expand...

http://www.americanrifleman.org/GalleryItem.aspx?cid=22&gid=246&id=2265
 
S

speculawyer

Member
el retorno said:
The NRA's favorite Movie is.....

Red Dawn

I'm shocked
and lol
http://www.americanrifleman.org/GalleryItem.aspx?cid=22&gid=246&id=2265
Click to expand...

Holy smokes!

The Cold War era “Red Dawn” was the story of a conventionally fought World War III, featuring some of the most popular actors of the time. The theme of a potential Soviet invasion resonated deeply with the American public, especially gun owners as it portrayed a small group of determined Americans standing up for freedom against all odds. It also demonstrated human resilience and emphasized the Second Amendment by featuring a bumper sticker that stated: “They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.”

“Red Dawn” featured a variety of firearms from behind the Iron Curtain, such as the AKM, an updated version of the AK-47—most were mocked-up versions because true versions were unavailable—and a Tokarev TT-33 pistol, the movie also exhibited numerous American classics like the Colt Single Action Army, the Ruger 77, Ruger Mini 14 and the M1911A1.
Click to expand...
The fetish aspect just jumps out at you.

Up until the fall of the Berlin wall, many folks prepared for a possible invasion by what Ronald Reagan called the “Evil Empire.” This movie emphasized that Americans fought, and would fight again, for their freedoms.
Click to expand...
Who the fuck did that? NO ONE but a tiny slice of paranoid nuts. The only worry was a nuclear war and there was nothing you could do about that.
 
B

besada

Banned
Crisco said:
I mean, it's true, he could just do it. It would be illegal but I mean, he's the President, wtf are they going to do? Impeach him? Would never happen over gitmo. So technically, they are right, but it's ignoring Congress's role in making it legally challenging.
Click to expand...

He's the Commander-in-Chief, so he could always just order all of the military personnel out of Gitmo, after ordering them to open up the cells. Then Raul Castro could deal with them.

Just have the Marines slink away in the middle of the night.

Edit: On a more serious note, has anyone put up a thread about the BSA voting on gay scouts today? I keep thinking about swinging by the building to see if the crazies have come out. It's about fifteen minutes away.
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
it seems like republicans base many political views on what they see on tv/in movies. see; believing mainland invasion is possible (red dawn), believing torture is effective (24), believing criminals regularly invade homes and can be fought off with guns (many horror/action moves,) believing people are extremely accurate with firearms in life or death situations (any action movie.)
 
B

Blergmeister

Member
Frank the Great said:
it seems like republicans base many political views on what they see on tv/in movies. see; believing mainland invasion is possible (red dawn), believing torture is effective (24), believing criminals regularly invade homes and can be fought off with guns (many horror/action moves,) believing people are extremely accurate with firearms in life or death situations (any action movie.)
Click to expand...

Or are tv shows and movies made with those political views made to attract conservatives?
 
O

Owzers

Member
Oh....The Five, why do i do this to myself? Obama is droning on about drones to distract people from the scandals - Eric Bolling. Dana Perino complains that she couldn't follow the speech.

Fine. FINE.
 
J

Jooney

Member
Republicans already on the attack:

Washington Post

Obama’s speech drew a quick response from Republicans, who have accused the president of downplaying the threat of terrorism.

“The president’s speech today will be viewed by terrorists as a victory,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Rather than continuing successful counterterrorism activities, we are changing course with no clear operational benefit.”

Chambliss was also critical of Obama’s plans to try to close Guantanamo, signaling the obstacles that the president will face in Congress.

Rep. Edward R. Royce, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, weighed in with similar criticism. “The troubling reality is that the president continues to underestimate the serious threat that al-Qaeda and its affiliated and inspired terrorists present to Americans,” Royce said in a statement. “Now is not the time to abandon robust efforts to keep Americans safe.”
Click to expand...

America can't have nice things, or try and at least get on the path to doing nice things, because there is another party that just doesn't want to play ball.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Any deals on LG OLED 77" C1 vs C2?
6
671
The Infectious Paradox replied
LTTP: Dead Space 3 (2013) via PS3 Ultra Slim
17
526
WoJ replied
"Gonna be worth tuning into the Xbox Tokyo game show stream next week" says Tom Warren
Rumor 2 3 4
163
7K
Tiago Rodrigues replied
Nintendo sells 77 Million Amibos
48
2K
Kikorin replied
LTTP: Battlefield 4 (PS3) 2013
LTTP
35
928
Kupfer replied
Top Bottom