Report: Secret Service strained to protect Obama

**elganned** · October-27-09, 11:31 PM

Oh, don't mind MCP-001--he's just bitter. Comes from not having a girlfriend, I suppose.

**rb336** · October-28-09, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Have any science fiction movies/books ever come true?

the aforementioned 1984, 20,000 leagues under the sea, and more

ccbatson · October-30-09, 12:17 AM

Please explain...Totalitarian states existed before the writing of "1984"...and the other one? what? submarines? that is fiction coming true? I suppose stories of space ships prior to the first orbital manned crafts existed would fit your definition as well.

**d.mcc** · October-30-09, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Please explain...Totalitarian states existed before the writing of "1984"...and the other one? what? submarines? that is fiction coming true? I suppose stories of space ships prior to the first orbital manned crafts existed would fit your definition as well.

That would be the definition of sci-fi and...coming true..

**rb336** · October-30-09, 08:12 AM

gee, bats, i know you are not so simple-minded that 1984 merely means "totalitarian states"

1984 means much more - the surveillance state, one for which you have, on numerous occasions, stood up in support

Lorax · October-30-09, 08:42 AM

Those who openly support a surveillance state secretly wish their intimate "home movies"were good enough to make it to prime time.

ccbatson · October-30-09, 08:38 PM

You realize that the current administration is moving in leaps and bounds towards this totalitarian state don't you?

**rb336** · November-02-09, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

You realize that the current administration is moving in leaps and bounds towards this totalitarian state don't you?

That is the stupidest thing you have ever posted, Bats, and totally unsuportable except via your ilk's paranoid delusions

Lorax · November-02-09, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

You realize that the current administration is moving in leaps and bounds towards this totalitarian state don't you?

You do mean the Bush Administration- warrantless wiretapping, cameras, data mining of all computer keystrokes since 2001, and the list goes on.

Right idea, wrong administration.

**oladub** · November-02-09, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Lorax

You do mean the Bush Administration- warrantless wiretapping, cameras, data mining of all computer keystrokes since 2001, and the list goes on.

Right idea, wrong administration.

I could, once again give you a list of Bush's initiatives that Obama supported and has since expanded. To me, the transition seems almost seamless. To be fair though, which of Bush's initiatives has Obama reversed starting with the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping? President Obama has fallen as far short in restoring privacy as he has in ending war in the Middle-East and the recession. There is always hope I suppose. The President continues to provide hope but has been a little weak on change.

**rb336** · November-02-09, 10:23 AM

simply more evidence of obama's right-of-center position

**d.mcc** · November-02-09, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax

You do mean the Bush Administration- warrantless wiretapping, cameras, data mining of all computer keystrokes since 2001, and the list goes on.

Right idea, wrong administration.

For once I agree with Cc... Obama's non-action on this merely enforces his support for these policies...

**ghettopalmetto** · November-02-09, 02:18 PM

The Secret Service is just another socialist threat to our liberties. I mean, why should we have to pay for Barack Obama's security detail? He should have known that being President would require him to have bodyguards. He should have hired his own instead of gouging us to pay for his perks.

Who does he think he is, anyway?

**rb336** · November-02-09, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by d.mcc

For once I agree with Cc... Obama's non-action on this merely enforces his support for these policies...

no, don't worry -- you actually don't agree with CC -- enforcing isn't "moving in leaps and bounds" and certainly the issues CC pretends to have with Obama are figments of his imagination [[remember, to CC freedom only means slavish devotion to capital, and CC was a fervent backer of every bit of anti-civil rights bill Dubya pushed and Obama continues)

Lorax · November-02-09, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

I could, once again give you a list of Bush's initiatives that Obama supported and has since expanded. To me, the transition seems almost seamless. To be fair though, which of Bush's initiatives has Obama reversed starting with the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping? President Obama has fallen as far short in restoring privacy as he has in ending war in the Middle-East and the recession. There is always hope I suppose. The President continues to provide hope but has been a little weak on change.

Again, perhaps people haven't noticed my sympathies do not lie with Democrats, other than they were the lesser of two evils in my book.

A repudiation of all things Bush does not imply an acceptance of all things Obama.

I agree, and have stated many times before for those reading, that Obama's refusal to dismantle the expanded imperial Bush powers is proof that when powers are granted, they are rarely removed.

The Patriot Act will expire, as will the Tush tax cuts. The warantless wiretapping and black-site prisons, contracts with Halliburton, Bechtel, and Blackwater continue in full force.

This is what I didn't understand about Tush most of all- why, knowing that you're going to be replaced by a Democrat, would you keep expanded presidential powers in place, and risk having those used against you and your party?

Because a deal was made, most likely, that Obama would not pursue prosecutions against Bush & Cheney in exchange for leaving the expanded powers intact. And the fact that Bush had no interest in what happened to the Republican party, and could care less what happened to America in the disasterous wake of his 8 years in office.

Power corrupts is a most apt description here. And so we continue down the road.

**oladub** · November-02-09, 06:59 PM

I can't figure out Bush's moves either. Bush ran for office promising a humble foreign policy and no nation building. A cabinet member said Bush was already suggesting attacking Iraq just days after he was in office.Once, Bush did something unpopular just after being elected the second time. Maybe it was extending more favors to the rich. I don't remember. He made the statement, then, that he had plenty of political capital he could spend. It was an arrogant in your face sort of statement to Americans. Maybe he was just doing what his sponsors wanted him to do and, like you suggested, he could care less what happened to the Republican Party as he was no longer up for reelection. He did tell us what he though about the Constitution. Maybe his attitude extended to the Republican Party and the Country.

ccbatson · November-02-09, 07:32 PM

Bush ran for office before 911

Lorax · November-02-09, 07:41 PM

It did extend to the Republican party. Just look what the Republican base is comprised of these days, and who they listen to.

This is the same crowd [[about 20% of the voting population) that thinks Bush didn't do anything wrong. This crowd will never win another national election, ideology aside, there just aren't the numbers in a racially diverse America.

The schism happening in the Republican party today will be written about in history books, much as the modern Republican party was formed out ot the old Whig party.

The Whigs are what passes for the Republican party today. It will be gone as a brand in a few years. Think of a dying party affiliation like a retail product brand which fails to keep up with consumers- think of DUZ detergent when referencing Republicans.

When a group becomes this radical in their views, they end up at the bottom of the ballot somewhere between the Marxists and the Green party.

Lorax · November-02-09, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Bush ran for office before 911

Oh, really?

No one knew that.

What are you smoking, "doc?"

But 9/11 happened on Tush's watch, and he is ultimately responsible for ignoring those who warned him well ahead of time.

ccbatson · November-02-09, 09:10 PM

Gulf War 2 also happened after 911...Pre 911 mentality rightfully differs from post.

Lorax · November-02-09, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Gulf War 2 also happened after 911...Pre 911 mentality rightfully differs from post.

What?

Elaborate, please. You're not making sense as usual. Yeah, and Tush started it in a grab for oil and war profiteering run amok by his "base."

**oladub** · November-03-09, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Gulf War 2 also happened after 911...Pre 911 mentality rightfully differs from post.

According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Bush's mentality was the same before 9/11 as after 9/11. Iraq was never an Al Queda center anyway.

"President Bush and his senior aides began plotting the invasion of Iraq just days after he took office in January 2001 and not, as the administration has indicated, after terrorists struck against the United States eight months later, according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who was forced from his post in December 2002.
In an interview scheduled to air tonight on CBS News' "60 Minutes," O'Neill derided what he considered the administration's intent from the start to remove Saddam Hussein by force."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...1_oneill_says/

The fact is that Bush lied when he told the American people that he was for a humble foreign policy when he was running for President and then started talking about invading Iraq days after the election.

ccbatson · November-06-09, 12:38 AM

Prior to 911 the real and perceived threat of radical muslim terrorism was lower than after 911. The stated rational for 911 by OBL was to eject the US from the middle east. The reason for our increased presence in the middle east was Gulf War I and maintaining a presence there to secure the terms of the cease fire were followed [[they were not). Add the persistent and progressive violation of said terms of a cease fire to the post 911 philosophical conflict vis a vis Al Qaeda attacking based on our presence in the middle east, and....Gulf War 2

**elganned** · November-06-09, 08:44 AM

Reconstructionist history at its finest, a Byzantine and nebulous post-mortem.

Gulf 2 was a thinly-disguised grab for Iraq's oil fields. Paul and Donald and Dick and W seriously miscalculated the effort and course of the war, believing it would be a cake-walk and that Iraq's oil revenues would quickly recoup our expenses. And here we are.

The justification proffered was not "persistent and progressive violation of terms of a cease fire", it was WMD.

The timing was an opportunist application of the principle expounded by Goering at the Nuremburg Trials--it's easy to get people to endorse war if you tell them they are under attack and denounce any contrary view as unpatriotic and evil. 911 couldn't have come at a better time for Cheney & Co.

**oladub** · November-06-09, 11:07 AM

Bats, I am arguing in post#72 that Bush lied when he ran for the presidency. He ran for offices under false pretenses even if everything you said was true . If it was true, then Bush shouldn't have agreed to let in 15,000 mostly male Saudi students, annually into the US after 9/11 and leave our own borders unguarded.