Obama - Where's the change?

[Master Shake]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

I'm not exactly sure why some consider the restoration of habius corpus ( a fundamental principle of modern democracy for over 700 years) as a trivial event.
Or the banning of torture, something the international community considers a war crime, is a symbolic act.

But other than that, do you think if the recovery bill is not passed and we do nothing, the recession will get better?

When was habeus corpus suspended for U.S. citizens? Other than when Lincoln did it, that is.

And when did "torture" become making stateless terrorists wear women's panties on their heads?

[we_are_toast]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Spoken like a true Obamessiah Kool-Aid drinker.

One thing he could do is show some leadership and not delegate the writing of this pork-laden "stimulus" bill to the Pelosi's and Reid's of the world.

He's just an empty suit with a better vocabulary and demeanor than the previous moron who occupied the office.

Master Shake, your well structured, detailed, and substantive response to the actions of the President are simply too well thought out and far too detail oriented for me to debate. You win, I concede.

[metalman]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Isn't it really too early to tell? Politics is the art of the possible. Sometimes it's clear what is the right thing, but it still can't be done because it's the "wrong" timing. To expect the new President to have tackled and solved the FIRE economy in two weeks is a bit much, isn't it?

Some of the best leaders I ever worked for deliberately cultivated conflict in their organizations. It can be a useful way to keep everyone honest, because instead of the leader being responsible for figuring out what is BS, everyone is scrutinizing everyone else...and talking about it. Think of it as "real time", continuous peer review.

you may be right. he may be that smart. we shall see.

looks like i was wrong about volcker leaving... he's got his team. it's stacked with fire econ people, however...

President's Economic Advisory Recovery Board

1. William H. Donaldson, former Chairman, SEC
2. Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., President & CEO, TIAA-CREF
3. Robert Wolf, Chairman & CEO, UBS Group Americas
4. David F. Swensen, CIO, Yale University
5. Mark T. Gallogly, Founder & Managing Partner, Centerbridge Partners L.P.
6. Penny Pritzker, Chairman & Founder, Pritzker Realty Group
7. John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers
8. Jim Owens, Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar Inc.
9. Monica C. Lozano, Publisher & Chief Executive Officer, La Opinion
10. Charles E. Phillips, Jr., President, Oracle Corporation
11. Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer, SEIU
12. Richard L. Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO
13. Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Dean, Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley
14. Martin Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University
15. Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO, GE

[Starving Steve]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Originally Posted by pwcmba 2) I am interested to solicate from the itulip world where they would move (country) if not bound by any constrant like family, job, etc.. I guess my specific interest is in social/government stability, personal freedom, property rights, etc.. Not just a quick answer like a private island

Not so fast there! Consider New Hampshire. Let me fill you in on what I spent the last couple of days on. Tuesday I read about a resolution submitted to the state relations committee, HCR-6, that went to public comment yesterday the 5th.
Here it is: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...9/HCR0006.html

Here's the intro: "

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and
Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and
Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and
Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and
Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and
That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and"....


Here's the money shot:"
That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature"

So, I spent wednesday contacting every member of that committee as well as many other state representatives urging their support. I then drove the 2 hrs down to Concord yesterday where it was standing room only.
I managed to get right up front, about 8 feet from the speakers table, to hear each representative state the case for this resolution.
I heard "revolution", "depression", and "state's rights" many times, these terms being used by state elected representatives. There was not one case made against the resolution. It was like watching history being made, very strange but electric feeling in the air. The room was over flowing and people are pissed but in a "let's change this" kind of way. I know this will pass the committee and perhaps even make it through the general vote. The rubber meets the road when the decision has to be made to actually declare Federal laws null and void in NH.
I spent this morning composing a letter and sending that to each state senator.
Oh, many speakers mentioned that they have never had such a response to a resolution before and have had lots of interview requests, many from overseas. This is getting traction, you just won't read about it in the MSM.

Looking for a place to move is always an interesting exercise. Minnesota is fine, and it is liberal and very fun. New Hampshire sounds fine and independent. Alberta is fine, fun, free, independent, and wild-West without the rednecks. Saskatchewan is fine and very free, wide-open, beautiful, and progressive.

Stay out of B.C. because it is run by the eco-frauds, and they can be obnoxious to deal with, especially in regional planning issues. Try getting a building permit in this province, and the eco-frauds will tell you that fish can walk straight-up in ditches where water barely trickles. Speed limits in this province are 50KPM (32MPH ) on most provincial highways.

Be careful about one thing right now, however: The racists and the neo-cons in the U.S. who were the ones behind Bush--- the ones who did this economic damage to America and the world with their stupid supply-side economics--- are now trying to make whatever trouble they can for the new president. They would be glad to join your movement for states' rights and New Hampshire independence, however justified that movement may be, just to make trouble for Obama.

Funny how we never heard much about states' rights and the right of succession in the U.S. before, especially not since the civil rights marches of the '60s? Aren't you wondering about that?

[GRG55]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

you may be right. he may be that smart. we shall see.

looks like i was wrong about volcker leaving... he's got his team. it's stacked with fire econ people, however...

President's Economic Advisory Recovery Board

1. William H. Donaldson, former Chairman, SEC
2. Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., President & CEO, TIAA-CREF
3. Robert Wolf, Chairman & CEO, UBS Group Americas
4. David F. Swensen, CIO, Yale University
5. Mark T. Gallogly, Founder & Managing Partner, Centerbridge Partners L.P.
6. Penny Pritzker, Chairman & Founder, Pritzker Realty Group
7. John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers
8. Jim Owens, Chairman and CEO, Caterpillar Inc.
9. Monica C. Lozano, Publisher & Chief Executive Officer, La Opinion
10. Charles E. Phillips, Jr., President, Oracle Corporation
11. Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer, SEIU
12. Richard L. Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO
13. Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Dean, Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley
14. Martin Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University
15. Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO, GE

Looks like Larry Summers had some say in the appointees...:rolleyes:

[skidder]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

Fred, Here's a link to the only picture that was taken by the campaign manager. It also has some comments on the hearing itself.

http://www.nhcitizen.org/modules/content/?id=63

[Supercilious]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

It's on ... much earlier than I've expected. Of course for now it's spreading mostly among those with concealed carry permits for tinfoil hat protection



Actually I believe Obama's presidency is a great opportunity for Alex Jones to become mainstream

[metalman]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

like all good propaganda, there's just enough truth in this vid to make it compelling.

[xtronics]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

...however: The racists and the neo-cons in the U.S. who were the ones behind Bush--- the ones who did this economic damage to America and the world with their stupid supply-side economics--- are now trying to make whatever trouble they can for the new president.

I did not vote for Bush either time. Come on - don't be foolish. Both sides are corrupt. Do you really think any of them care about ordinary citizens? Grow up. They care about getting elected and getting money and power. There are perhaps three in congress and the senate that follow anything close to principals - and they are totally marginalized.

Here is how it works. The political class is not to be directly bribed, so they get 'investment' opportunities that never fail (as long as they keep voting the right way). It often starts out as rather innocent third party reverse competition (http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Reverse_Competition) but by the time they are in national politics they are most always very compromised. You really think so many of these guys are such great business men that they amass millions on the side?

Sorry to rant, but I live in the real world.

[c1ue]

Re: Obama - Where's the change?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/bu...lout.html?_r=1

Change you can believe in?

Or the same old posturing?

The Obama administration’s new plan to bail out the nation’s banks was fashioned after a spirited internal debate that pitted the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, against some of the president’s top political hands.

In the end, Mr. Geithner largely prevailed in opposing tougher conditions on financial institutions that were sought by presidential aides, including David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, according to administration and Congressional officials.

Or - "This problem is too tough and potentially ugly. Let's throw some underlings out as bait. Then I've got deniability".

Isn't it interesting that the only 2 actual names mentioned by "officials" are Geithner and Axelrod? And what credentials does Axelrod as Obama's campaign manager and professional political consultant bring to a discussion on saving the American financial system?

Is this another case of surveying the Iowan housewives to see if the US should bomb Serbia?