OBAMA'S WAFFLE SHOPPE OPEN.

[Centurion73]

Obama Exempts CIA Torture Staff from Prosecution
Published  WASHINGTON on 04-17-2009

Obama's Handshake With Chavez: Outreach or Irresponsibility?
President Takes Heat for Smiling Handshake With Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Other Summit Actions
www.abcnews.go.com

Barack Obama: President Pantywaist - new surrender monkey on the block
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Apr 10, 2009 at 10:20:05

the US never being, nor ever will be, at war with Islam

Quote from: Pirate King Atomsk on April 11, 2009, 05:16:09 PM

from what I'm reading, Obama told the Navy "not to hurt them".

www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/politics/09immig.html?_r=3&hp

Obama's comprehensive immigration legislation, includes a plan to make legal status possible for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, would be a priority in his first year in office
Published on 04-09-2009

12 million changes, nice.

Obama to visit CIA to ?reassure? officers ?no probes?  Published: April 20, 2009
Updated 5 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AFP)


Despite Major Plans, Obama Taking Softer Stands
nytimes.com

"Can you say "politics as usual"? While only in office for four months, Obama has decided to side set most of his promises to the people who voted for him as well as the people who did not."


U.S. to boycott UN racism conference
Reuters.com

Mr President water the lawn your grass roots are dying

"It wasn?t that long ago that the world was amazed with this young upstart from Chicago and his ability to bring out the votes. People looked at this man and saw HOPE! They saw a chance for CHANGE!
Now, those same Obamamaniacs are wondering where they went wrong? How did this happen? How did we not see through that shiny confident veneer to the overly trusting, apologetic man who just wants everyone to like him?

Well, we?ve learned our lesson ? our voice doesn?t matter unless it is expressing the opinion of the rich and privileged.

It is sad to see this President, who held the hopes and dreams of MILLIONS, just slap his hands together, twist a bit and rub the remnants on the pants of the voters who WORKED so hard to get him elected ."




Obama Exempts CIA Torture Staff from Prosecution

[Centurion73]

www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/index.html

"Back in February, the Obama administration shocked many civil libertarians by filing a brief in federal court that, in two sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue --"

the Obama DOJ argued, as The New York Times's Charlie Savage put it, "that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment...

Change, yes we can!!
[attachthumb=2]

[Centurion73]

Source: MSNBC        Submitted: 04/09/2009    
?During his run for the presidency Barack Obama, [attachthumb=3] at the University of Chicago, argued strongly against the Bush Administration?s use of ?executive authority? including its self-justification, its rationalization, of the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

?That was then, this is now. President Obama?s justice department (is) not just defending Bush officials from lawsuits surrounding National Security Agency domestic spying, but seeking to expand the government?s authority by making it immune (to) any legal challenge regarding wiretapping?ever. Welcome to ?change? you cannot believe in.?

[attach=2]

[Centurion73]

Napolitano Defends Report on Extremism
By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 16, 2009

said it unfairly targeted returning military veterans and gun rights advocates without citing specific threats. The report said the return of military veterans facing challenges with reintegrating into their communities "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

A footnote in the report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," said that while there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence, such acts could come from unnamed "rightwing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms -- and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.

Another Obama pick gone awry as he  "fiddles."

[Centurion73]

NPR
Obama Faces Democratic Opposition On Earmarks by David Welna

" President Barack Obama's new proposals for earmarks are getting flak from his own party."

Obama Signs 'Imperfect' Spending Bill

by Deborah Tedford

President Obama on Wednesday signed what he called an "imperfect" $410 billion omnibus spending bill, while calling on Congress to enact changes that will limit the ability of lawmakers to put pet projects in future measures.

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," he said.

Obama said the projects, known as earmarks, are often wasteful and without merit.

Obama called on Congress to place notice of earmarks on the sponsoring lawmaker's Web site in advance to give the public an opportunity to judge their merits and to require competitive bidding for earmarks that involve the work of private companies.

Obama Falling Short of Promised Online Openness; Does it Matter?
Written by Marshall Kirkpatrick / April 10, 2009

When he came into office Barack Obama made sweeping changes in favor of transparency in general and openness on the web in particular. One important promise the administration made has not been kept, however, according to a study released this week.

On the day the Presidency changed hands the White House made a blog post that included a promise that all non-emergency legislation would be posted online for five days before the President signed it into law so as to "allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it." That hasn't happened so far; Obama has signed 11 bills into law and only 1 spent 5 days online between Congress and his office.

Tracking the specific bills and the dates they were posted online was done by the Cato Institute's Jim Harper. He's posted an excellent chart with links to the specifics here www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/09/a-flagging-obama-transparency-effort/.

More change you have to love it how HE can change the rules of what HE said and ran on, amazing that there is not outrage.

[Centurion73]

Holder says 'no one is above the law' as calls for special prosecutor mount
Jeremy Gantz
Published: Wednesday April 22, 2009

"Hours after being presented with more than a quarter million signatures demanding that he appoint a special independent prosecutor to investigate Bush-era torture practices, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that "no one is above the law"

"Tuesday, President Obama said Holder will be the person who ultimately decides whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote opinions providing a legal basis for interrogation techniques widely denounced as torture."

"A war crime investigation does not look at the people who drove the trains -- they look at the people who told the trains to roll. "George Bush and Vice President Cheney, the CIA director, the attorney general ... implemented, in full knowledge that it was a war crime, the torture program."

"Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government"

- Thomas Jefferson

[Centurion73]

Obama proposes US loan $100 billion to International Monetary Fund
Published on 04-21-2009
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KD21Ak02.html

Washington wanted burden sharing. Berlin, quite rationally, did not. Even before the meetings, the United States dropped the demand - Germany was not going to cooperate.

The second issue was the financing of the bailout of the Central European banking system, heavily controlled by Eurozone banks and part of the EU financial system. The Germans did not want an EU effort to bail out the banks. They wanted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out a substantial part of the EU financial system instead. The reason was simple: The IMF receives loans from the United States.

"The United States has signaled it would be willing to contribute $100 billion to the IMF, of which a substantial portion would go to Central Europe. (Of the current loans given by the IMF, roughly 80% have gone to the struggling economies in Central Europe.) The United States therefore essentially has agreed to the German position. "

The Great appeaser at work and the man he hand picked does this.

Geithner admits US responsibility for crisis (Blame Americans first crowd lives on)
TIMES ONLINE ^ | 4/22/2009 | Christine Seib

Posted on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 6:14:18 PM by tobyhill

America bears a substantial share of the responsibility for the global economic crisis, Timothy Geithner, the US Treasury Secretary, admitted today.

This fucking guy is making Bush look like Mensa instead of Densa material.

[bobcollum]

Wow, if only everyone in this country could've been so dilligent over the past 150 years, we wouldn't be in a quarter of the mess we're in now.

Better late than never?

[Centurion73]

Wow, if only everyone in this country could've been so dilligent over the past 150 years, we wouldn't be in a quarter of the mess we're in now.

Better late than never?

I hate to use the term "founders" but they were quiet vigilant and diligent in when, why, where, and HOW a Federal government should and would act.

[Centurion73]

HE (the president) is like the old D&D commercial "Time to make the doughnuts" I envision the "smart guy" wakes early everyday to make the fresh steamy waffles or so it would appear.

White House fights back on torture flap
Agence France-Presse
Published: Wednesday April 22, 2009

"NEWTON, Iowa (AFP) - The White House Wednesday rebuffed calls for an independent prosecutor to probe Bush-era terror interrogations and denied the Obama administration was tied up in political knots over the issue.

"Controversy raged anew a day after President Barack Obama appeared to change policy by leaving the door open to prosecutions of officials..."

"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said flatly that a flurry of news reports proclaiming the administration had switched course on delving further into those behind methods like near drowning, or waterboarding, were wrong."

"Obama said on Tuesday that any investigation in Congress should be on an non-partisan basis and outside politically tense hearings process.

But the White House denied he was proposing some kind of investigation."

"The notion that the president is open to anything, I think, misses the point," Gibbs said.

No shit!!!!

[bobcollum]

I hate to use the term "founders" but they were quiet vigilant and diligent in when, why, where, and HOW a Federal government should and would act.

Agreed, but the American people have not held up their end of the responsibility, and it is only now, when it it is personally detrimental(in the wallet) that many wake up and smell reality, but the hostility is misdirected and for the most part seems to beat to the drum of whomever your pundit of choice may be, which is just stupid. I've said for years now that the likes of Rush, Hannity, etc...are absolutely without a doubt 50% correct...Democrats are no good, but they can't seem to extend the same criticism to the Republican side, because they are very much aligned with the philosophy, thus principal trumps absolute truth. Don't get me wrong, it happens on the other side in the same fashion but there are undoubtedly far more pundits who have nationally syndicated radio/tv programs to choose from on the right.

These people have one major thing in common with the politicians they critique or admire, they want to have a long career, and the ends always seems to justify the means for both groups. The citizens give all of them creedence by way of acknowledgment, ratings or votes, as if there is no other way. Everyone needs to reconfigure their perspectives.

I just think it is pointless to fritter away valuable time by discovering all of these articles displaying Obama's inability to be perfect, seeing as how the very idea is nothing more than a manifestation of a feeling of acheivement by the left and a feeling of bitter disapointment from the right. My personal opinion? Based on how one-sided you seem I think they got in your head a little bit, but then, i've also never read any posts from you before March of this year. I mean that in the most civil way possible, I read somewhere that you were a Marine, and I respect that in a serious way. I know and love several of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, and they've all earned the right to complain, but it doesn't mean they're always right(no, not like Obama).

[Pirate King Atomsk]

I can see that you're a very reasonable fellow, bob. Kudos on that.

I would just like to point out though, in Limbaugh's defense, that he actually condemned the Bush administration on several occasions. He didn't believe that it's policies reflected those of Reagan's admin enough. He often called them "faux republicans". As many things as Limbaugh has praised Bush on, he's given plenty of "beat downs" to Bush AND Senator McCain during his campaign. That's why I listen to him. Sure, he leans right - but he'll call out the right when they don't follow their own foundational policies.

[Centurion73]

My personal opinion? Based on how one-sided you seem I think they got in your head a little bit, but then, i've also never read any posts from you before March of this year. I mean that in the most civil way possible, I read somewhere that you were a Marine, and I respect that in a serious way. I know and love several of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, and they've all earned the right to complain, but it doesn't mean they're always right(no, not like Obama).

I have posted before March but was giving the man a chance to do what he said he would do and see how he would act it did not take long. I gave him credit for OK'ing the final order to take out the pirates or did you not read that one. I am not a misquided child for serving my country that gave me great rights and opportunities and I am sorry that you think that way but I fought for you too if you are a citizen.

I do not see how I am being one sided by pointing out he has said one thing then does another, claims these are the rules then changes the rules. I am just pointing out that he is a politician and not the person who ran for president in "57" states.

I do not ask him nor anyone to be perfect but I do expect him to be cognizant and truthful not Bush 44 that he is appearing to turn into.

[bobcollum]

I can see that you're a very reasonable fellow, bob. Kudos on that.

Could I get that in writing? There are a few ex-girlfriends I'd like to show it to.

I would just like to point out though, in Limbaugh's defense, that he actually condemned the Bush administration on several occasions. He didn't believe that it's policies reflected those of Reagan's admin enough. He often called them "faux republicans". As many things as Limbaugh has praised Bush on, he's given plenty of "beat downs" to Bush AND Senator McCain during his campaign. That's why I listen to him. Sure, he leans right - but he'll call out the right when they don't follow their own foundational policies.

Its all true, so true. Especially the yearning to return to the conservative orgasm known as the 80's...military spending was through the roof, national pride and spirit were soaring like an eagle, and Springsteen was "Born In the USA", not a pinko commie. I think Reagan did the things he did because the situation at the time allowed him to do so, and he was able to appease his base more than most Presidents ever have, but that almost never happens(Clinton did well with this too), and is less likely everyday things go downhill. Reagan's legacy has become a fish tale of sorts....it keeps getting bigger, or more grand everytime its told. Bottom line to me, it seems impractical to base your ideas for the future on pleasant memories from the past, especially when they were a merely a product of their times. Oh, these pundits....Glen Beck sometime last week, closes his show with a mock obituary for "common sense" that a viewer sent in. Only problem was common sense tells me that claiming that to be a new trend is so intellectually dishonest.

Some people can handle it, most give it more factual credibility than it deserves. They don't have all the time in the world to conduct thourough research on what they hear, and I can understand that, but it is scary how many people I've met who literally admit that they get the majority of their news intake from watching Bill O'Reilly. Not surprisingly, they share many of his thoughts and sentiments...except probably the womanizing, short-temper, and overall sense of hypocrisy.

[Centurion73]

Some people can handle it, most give it more factual credibility than it deserves. They don't have all the time in the world to conduct thourough research on what they hear, and I can understand that, but it is scary how many people I've met who literally admit that they get the majority of their news intake from watching Bill O'Reilly. Not surprisingly, they share many of his thoughts and sentiments...except probably the womanizing, short-temper, and overall sense of hypocrisy.

True the Reagan tale grows larger and I think Clinton did a good job while in office and not without his problems either. People have the time to do the research but are mainly too lazy to do so in my opinion. My sources come from in country and outside as to try and get a broader picture of the issues at hand. I share no thoughts or sentiments with those you have mentioned and do not and would not waste my time on them as I am very well capable of forming my own thoughts be they in line with what you think or not, does not make either of us right or wrong but does provide a dialog.

[bobcollum]

I have posted before March but was giving the man a chance to do what he said he would do and see how he would act it did not take long. I gave him credit for OK'ing the final order to take out the pirates or did you not read that one.

Whoa cowboy, I meant I joined the site in March, so I haven't fully grasped your political affiliations, and I've tried to discern from what I've read in the past month. And I read your post which credited Obama in the pirate fiasco...you and everyone else in the country.

I am not a misquided child for serving my country that gave me great rights and opportunities and I am sorry that you think that way but I fought for you too if you are a citizen.

Again, whoa! Did you just skim through my post? I'm pretty sure it contained 'respect in a serious way'. Secondly, Uncle Sam's Misguided Children is an acronym for USMC, and I guess you've never heard that one...calm down big fella.

I do not see how I am being one sided by pointing out he has said one thing then does another, claims these are the rules then changes the rules. I am just pointing out that he is a politician and not the person who ran for president in "57" states.

When are they? Its like I said, do it if you please, I just think its over-stating the obvious, and most people who go to that extent usually have a stronger motive than just innocently holding random politicians accountable. Again, my opnion.

I do not ask him nor anyone to be perfect but I do expect him to be cognizant and truthful not Bush 44 that he is appearing to turn into.

That kind of talk is way too premature imo. Besides, I doubt we've seen the end of negative results from the last 8 years of botched policy.

[Centurion73]

/michiganmessenger.com/17022/obama-solicitor-general-wants-key-michigan-precedent-overturned

"New Solicitor General Elena Kagan, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a landmark decision from Michigan that established clear guidelines on the questioning of defendants who have, or have requested, legal representation after being arraigned."

How such a "great" legal mind, editor of a law review and Constitutional Law professor stand behind this and push it forward is beyond me.

[Centurion73]

but then, i've also never read any posts from you before March of this year.

Miscommunication on my end probably but I really do not know when you joined and what you may have read before but it was a SNAFU from both I would say.

Uncle Sam's Misguided Children is an acronym for USMC, and I guess you've never heard that one...calm down big fella.

Old dog here they never taught us that one on the Island but I see your humor and it kind of is true sometimes.

I just think its over-stating the obvious, and most people who go to that extent usually have a stronger motive than just innocently holding random politicians accountable. Again, my opnion.

I just think it is pointless to fritter away valuable time by discovering all of these articles displaying Obama's inability to be perfect,

Like I said I do not expect him to be perfect. As for "I doubt we've seen the end of negative results from the last 8 years of botched policy." He knew what he was getting into running for President, how he can blame not prosecuting the people who sanctioned torture is beyond my limited thinking.

I have stated before I am here for the Socratic method (not directed at you if that is not you're style) for those that want to see or discuss different points of view if they can be brought to light and backed up.

[bobcollum]

He knew what he was getting into running for President, how he can blame not prosecuting the people who sanctioned torture is beyond my limited thinking.

I just came across this little bit from an article on the la times site. Biased news source? Absolutely, but this part sounds like logical reasoning, with the mindset that the ends justify the means, not 'change' in a DC sense:

Now, with the president must consider the release of new materials that could be inflammatory and heighten the already combustible mix of political pressures he faces. Though the liberal base that elected him wants wide disclosure and an investigation of Bush practices, pursuing that course would likely alienate the intelligence and military communities that are crucial to Obama's success as president.

Obama tried to walk that rhetorical line last week, heeding liberals' calls to release the torture memos but appearing to argue against further investigation or prosecution by saying that " "this is a time for reflection, not retribution."

Instead, he managed to anger both constituencies.

"My sense is the president was trying to please a lot of audiences at one time and that over the last [week] he has totally failed to put the mind of the intelligence community at ease," said Mark Lowenthal, a former senior advisor to CIA Director George J. Tenet. "He is going to end up with a national clandestine service that will not be willing to do anything because they feel he will not be there for them when they need him."

What are you gonna do? People love that two-party system...

[scooter]

Wow,whats with the blog

[Frys Girl]

What the hell does the title of this thread mean? Why can't it just be "Why I Hate Barack Obama's Presidency" or something more clear? Excuse me for being dense.

[EvB]

I assume it's a pun. 

v.  waf?fled, waf?fling, waf?fles v.intr. To speak or write evasively.v.tr. To speak, write, or act evasively about.n. Evasive or vague speech or writing.

waffle 2 Informal, chiefly Brit, Austral & NZ Verb[-fling, -fled]  to speak or write in a vague and wordy manner Noun vague and wordy speech or writing [origin unknown]

[Frys Girl]

I assume it's a pun. 

v.  waf?fled, waf?fling, waf?fles v.intr. To speak or write evasively.v.tr. To speak, write, or act evasively about.n. Evasive or vague speech or writing.

waffle 2 Informal, chiefly Brit, Austral & NZ Verb[-fling, -fled]  to speak or write in a vague and wordy manner Noun vague and wordy speech or writing [origin unknown]

I am so ESL. Whenever I encounter these problems, I think back to fourth grade when I had no idea what "skyscraper" meant on some dumb state test. Thanks EvB.

[bobcollum]

I am so ESL.

I think your initial feeling on the title was appropriate, its still what I think, though i've been told otherwise.

[Centurion73]

I think your initial feeling on the title was appropriate, its still what I think, though i've been told otherwise.

You and Ms. Fry would be wrong to assume or "think" that. I am not afraid to state if I disliked him as a person, I do not know him as a person I can only assume things by his actions. Someone before said a  things about Palin being honest so I pointed out inaccuracies as I have done here. That person did not like the facts as they are presented either but that is not my problem it is the problem for the receiver, the message is clear to be read by all who wish to do so. If the stories were lies I am sure evidence would be presented to refute what has been printed.

Posted by: EvB
Insert Quote
I assume it's a pun.

v.  waf?fled, waf?fling, waf?fles v.intr. To speak or write evasively.v.tr. To speak, write, or act evasively about.n. Evasive or vague speech or writing.

waffle 2 Informal, chiefly Brit, Austral & NZ Verb[-fling, -fled]  to speak or write in a vague and wordy manner Noun vague and wordy speech or writing [origin unknown]

Ding!

[Centurion73]

Reid, Obama oppose independent commission on torture
Agence France-Presse
Published: Thursday April 23, 2009

"The White House pointed to increasing hostility between Obama's Democratic allies and his Republican critics as evidence that the president was right to say Tuesday that he would not champion the creation of a special commission."

Did not we as  citizens not bitch when Bush would not go after his cronies? Why should Obama get a pass?

"Escalation could imperil Obama's legislative agenda, especially in the Senate, where the Democratic majority needs support from at least a few Republicans to ensure passage of major bills."

[Pirate King Atomsk]

Yeah..I kinda think the amount of Palin bashing threads merits at least an Obama watch thread. Many of the attacks on Palin during the campaign/election on this site were pretty personal. In fact, the left despised Palin - probably because she was a young, good looking, successful mother. I mean, sure, Mexicans and Africans can have 8 kids per household...(mudhut)..but when a white Christian woman does it..wooooah buddy, watch out. Here comes Randi Rhodes and every white liberal feminist on the face of the civilized world.

[bobcollum]

The selection of Palin was one of the most obvious ploys i've ever witnessed in politics. In the long run it ruined McCain's chances, among other things.

In fact, the left despised Palin - probably because she was a young, good looking, successful mother.

;

[Pirate King Atomsk]

I'm curious. How are any of those statements about Palin false, bob? She's the governor of Alaska, she has a beautiful family, and she's still very attractive. In fact, the left made a porn because they were so hot for her. lol. I'm not sure how exactly I'm embellishing here.

Although I do agree her selection was a ploy, and a bad one at that. Still, it energized the base initially. She just didn't go over well with the liberal media in the long run...(big surprise there). 

[Centurion73]

Yeah..I kinda think the amount of Palin bashing threads merits at least an Obama watch thread. Many of the attacks on Palin during the campaign/election on this site were pretty personal. In fact, the left despised Palin - probably because she was a young, good looking, successful mother. I mean, sure, Mexicans and Africans can have 8 kids per household...(mudhut)..but when a white Christian woman does it..wooooah buddy, watch out. Here comes Randi Rhodes and every white liberal feminist on the face of the civilized world.

DUDE, if you wrote that and you were not drunk (tip of the hat to the thread you started) that is FUNNY and what was needed here thank you for the laugh.

bobcollum

I have no issue or dislike for you and if I came off as anything other than that I apologize for that, I just think we should discuss the issues that is all.

I just think it is pointless to fritter away valuable time by discovering all of these articles

If that were the case Mr. bob (I assume it to be Mr.) I would argue that history would be a moot point (or to piss off PKA) mute point  .

Why should we fritter (nice play on the word waffle if that is what you intended and if not still a good choice) any time on past acts, statements, commissions or omissions? Let us look forward and not behind someone once said :

?Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

George Santayana