Fast & Furious

[SerScot]

Vraith,

For the record I think I'm pretty consistent in opposing the extension of Government power. So, I'm not sure who your "dorkweeds" refers to but I hope it isn't me.

[wayfriend]

We sent guns to Mexican drug cartels in Mexico without the permission of the Mexican Government. That's a violation of Mexican soveriegnty because Agents of the American government were engaging in a sting operation that extended beyond their Jurisdiction and inside the territory of the Mexican Government. Thus, unless you contend American Law Enforcement has the jurisdiction to operate inside Mexico without the express permission of the Mexican Government, F&F has to be a violation of Mexican Soveriegnty.

If you disagree with my analysis or contend there is an agreement with Mexico that allowed for F&F please explain why or link to the agreement.

I disagree that you have demonstrated it's beyond their jurisdiction because you (yet again) pretend that the US and Mexico have no agreements that might have made this permissible. E.g. Project Gunrunner, "in partnership with other U.S. agencies and the Government of Mexico" [link].

It's clear all you are ever going to do is ask me to disprove your baseless claim, and never substantiate your own. I am moving on.

I, for one, haven't said Pres. Obama is worse at least in the sense of violence offered. However, I do think he is more hypocritical given his campaign promises.

His campaign promise was to redouble our efforts to go after Al Queda. But I dare say you'll find him hyporcritcal anyway.

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

If you show me an agreement between the US and Mexico regarding what was done during F&F I'll happily concede the point.

Is it your contention there has been no hypocrisy from the Obama Administration?

[Vraith]

Vraith,

For the record I think I'm pretty consistent in opposing the extension of Government power. So, I'm not sure who your "dorkweeds" refers to but I hope it isn't me.

No, not you...actually, not really anybody on the watch off the top of my head. We've got plenty of conservative constitutionalists, maybe some originists [maybe] lots of libertarian/pragmatic/fiscal con types...I'm actually a lot more libertarian than i used to be mostly due to peeps here...but not many [or even any, maybe] on the more extreme social side...
Though I think there are results from being too strongly states-rights that allow a path to power for peeps who think, for instance, states can outlaw some pretty extravagant stuff. [I'm cognizant of the ideological/philosophical difference between "States have a right to outlaw the Pill," and "The Pill is the Devil's work, and should be banned!"...but also of the fact that they converge at the practical level]

Anyway, I think Obama has exceeded his legal authority in some cases. And he's switched/let down the side in some others. But F&F investigation is abuse and absurdity on the part of Issa and the political herd backing him up.

[Zarathustra]

Obama made many campaign promises, many of which are obviously, unambiguously broken. It's odd to single out one about Al Qaeda in a F&F thread. Coupled with the comment that predicts another Watch member's dogmatism on the issue of his hypocrisy, it does give the impression of Obama apologist that implies no hypocrisy, if not explicitly stated. I'd like to hear SS's question answered.

[Avatar]

Obama made many campaign promises, many of which are obviously, unambiguously broken.

Uh, he's a politician man.

--A

[SerScot]

Avatar,

So, outright lies are okay because we distrust politicians?

[Avatar]

Hahaha, no, you're just crazy to think you can believe them in the first place.

--A

[SerScot]

Avatar,

I never said I did. I'm simply pointing out what I infer from Wayfriend's spirited defense of President Obama and his administration. It appears to me that he does not believe they've engaged in hypocrisy. I'm asking the question to see if Wayfriend will admit President Obama lied while on the campaign trail and that he has been a hypocrite.

[Ananda]

Avatar,

I never said I did. I'm simply pointing out what I infer from Wayfriend's spirited defense of President Obama and his administration. It appears to me that he does not believe they've engaged in hypocrisy. I'm asking the question to see if Wayfriend will admit President Obama lied while on the campaign trail and that he has been a hypocrite.

Doesnt every politician do exactly that? How is Obama different to the others? Is it a problem with the politicians that they tell the people whatever they want to hear no matter how fanciful or a problem with the people because they will not vote for someone who tells them the truth of the situation or both?

[Zarathustra]

Ananda/Avatar, seriously, read the damn posts. No one is saying that hypocrisy is new. SS was responding to Wayfriend saying, "But I dare say you'll find him hyporcritcal anyway," as if it's a problem with SS for finding Obama hypocritical, like a character flaw or bias in a fellow Watch poster, rather than a problem inherent to all politicians. If you two believe that it's not surprising to find a politician hypocritical, then you should direct your comments to Wayfriend for implying that this belief arose from the politics of a fellow Watcher, rather than a fact that is generally true.

And while you're at it, instead of pestering someone who merely wants a question answered after an unclear, insinuating comment, why aren't you curious to hear the answer?

[Ananda]

Ananda/Avatar, seriously, read the damn posts. No one is saying that hypocrisy is new. SS was responding to Wayfriend saying, "But I dare say you'll find him hyporcritcal anyway," as if it's a problem with SS for finding Obama hypocritical, like a character flaw or bias in a fellow Watch poster, rather than a problem inherent to all politicians. If you two believe that it's not surprising to find a politician hypocritical, then you should direct your comments to Wayfriend for implying that this belief arose from the politics of a fellow Watcher, rather than a fact that is generally true.

And while you're at it, instead of pestering someone who merely wants a question answered after an unclear, insinuating comment, why aren't you curious to hear the answer?

I asked SerScot these things because I enjoy reading his opinions.

[Zarathustra]

I asked SerScot these things because I enjoy reading his opinions.

If you say so. I don't believe you, but whatever. I think you asked him those questions as an indirect way to defend Obama. It's a variation on the tired, "but Bush did it, too," or "but the Republicans are worse."

That's my opinion. I doubt you'll enjoy reading it. But that has never stopped me in the past.

This, "every politician does it" meme never seemed to raise its head when there were dozens of Bush-bashing threads in the Tank. Indifference towards political corruption, dishonesty, and hypocrisy among liberals only seems to arise when liberals are in office. Then suddenly they're the party of "everyone is corrupt" meme. As soon as Romney is President, they'll start caring about this stuff again. Just watch.

[Ananda]

I asked SerScot these things because I enjoy reading his opinions.

If you say so. I don't believe you, but whatever. I think you asked him those questions as an indirect way to defend Obama. It's a variation on the tired, "but Bush did it, too," or "but the Republicans are worse."

That's my opinion. I doubt you'll enjoy reading it. But that has never stopped me in the past.

This, "every politician does it" meme never seemed to raise its head when there were dozens of Bush-bashing threads in the Tank. Indifference towards political corruption, dishonesty, and hypocrisy among liberals only seems to arise when liberals are in office. Then suddenly they're the party of "everyone is corrupt" meme. As soon as Romney is President, they'll start caring about this stuff again. Just watch.

Zed, dont be so silly. Just because YOU like to score points all the time doesnt mean I do. I like reading Serscots opinions. He is interesting and intelligent. I dont really care about nailing Wayf or Obama. Why would I care about Obama for goodness sake? He is your president, not mine. You really can be unbearable at times, Zed.

For the record, I enjoy reading things that most of the posters here have to say. Serscot, sinda, cyberweez, syl, uss, soulbiter, hashi, vraith (when I can follow him!), etc are all interesting and I like to read what they have to say. Not eveyone is like you, Zed.

[SerScot]

Ananda,

Most politicans engage in political promises that they don't intend to keep. My problem with the Current POTUs is that he made some fairly specific promises, for example his promise to close Gitmo and give the prisoners normal trials, that he has flatly turned his back on after spending his 08 campaign criticizing the Bush Administration for doin exactly what he has continued to do. That's hypocrisy. I'd like to see Wayfriend acknowledge his guy lied. That the lies he told make the POTUS's promises and actions hypocritical.

[Ananda]

Ananda,

Most politicans engage in political promises that they don't intend to keep. My problem with the Current POTUs is that he made some fairly specific promises, for example his promise to close Gitmo and give the prisoners normal trials, that he has flatly turned his back on after spending his 08 campaign criticizing the Bush Administration for doin exactly what he has continued to do. That's hypocrisy. I'd like to see Wayfriend acknowledge his guy lied. That the lies he told make the POTUS's promises and actions hypocritical.

I understand that and joked about Obamas peace prize a few times. I wonder, though, in a more general sense (not about Obama, but just a tangent) why the politicians make such big promises while trying to be elected? Is it because they are serial liars or is it because, if they tell the people the truth, people will vote for their opponent?

For example, if candidate X says the economic forecast is bad for the next 5 years no matter what and all they can do is try to make the best of a bad situation and candidate Y says they will fix all the economy problems, everyone gets a new puppy, etc. and their opponent is terrible for not saying that, too, then who will people vote for? What if candidate X was telling the truth and Y was just making promises they cannot possibly keep? Will people vote for the person speaking realistically or will they vote for the one telling them everything they want to hear? My guess is they will vote for the one telling them what they want to hear in general. So, I am asking, are we part of the problem or is it just that politicians are all liars?

[SerScot]

There is truth to the statement that Democracy means we get the government we deserve.

[[Syl]]

Ananda,

Most politicans engage in political promises that they don't intend to keep. My problem with the Current POTUs is that he made some fairly specific promises, for example his promise to close Gitmo and give the prisoners normal trials, that he has flatly turned his back on after spending his 08 campaign criticizing the Bush Administration for doin exactly what he has continued to do. That's hypocrisy. I'd like to see Wayfriend acknowledge his guy lied. That the lies he told make the POTUS's promises and actions hypocritical.

Barack Obama abandons Guantánamo closure plan after Congress veto
ARTICLE: Obama's Failed Attempt to Close Gitmo: Why Executive Orders Can't Bring About Systemic Change (requires subscription, but the point can be seen)

While I have a lot of problems with Obama's failure to deliver, I wouldn't call it hypocrisy. Not in this case, anyway. IMO, he simply wasted the opportunity of controlling both houses and the executive when he had it by trying to appease critics (and live up to a campaign promise, ironically) by seeking a bipartisan commitment. Plus, NIMBY reared its ugly head. Put simply, Obama spent too much time trying to be liked by people who never would and repeatedly vowed to see him fail, and by the time he and everyone else realized what folks like me had been saying all along, they'd already squandered too much political capital.

[Avatar]

...admit President Obama lied while on the campaign trail and that he has been a hypocrite.

Just because he didn't do them doesn't mean he was lying when he said them. It's only lying if he had said them, and not intended to do it.

Breaking a promise doesn't mean you lied when you made the promise. It does mean some other unflattering stuff, but not that.

Now the hypocrisy thing, that I can probably go with. In many instances, his own behaviour, (drone attacks, assassinations) do not seem to conform to his apparent moral or ethical views. That is hypocrisy.

Z, I don't care about the big picture or some sort of agenda, I just pick up the threads that look interesting. That, dare I say, aren't about the politics, but about the ideas. Do I care if Obama is a hypocrite? Of course not. I expect him to be. I expect all politicians to be.

--A

[Holsety]

Zed, dont be so silly. Just because YOU like to score points all the time doesnt mean I do. I like reading Serscots opinions. He is interesting and intelligent. I dont really care about nailing Wayf or Obama. Why would I care about Obama for goodness sake? He is your president, not mine. You really can be unbearable at times, Zed.

I recognize this is a bit derailing but,
EDIT-Actually the last part turned into a massive derail because I tried to make it funny.

While I'm not really accusing YOU specifically of this, and this is relatively anecdotal, I think some foreigners, despite having less of a stake in US politics - and even no stake - still can get rather passionate about US politics, including the presidency and elections. My brother, who studied in Japan for a year and taught english there for a year, was actually approached by an elderly drunken Japanese man (I think at a bus stop) one evening and essentially questioned on the subject of why US elected Bush and why Bush had fucked up stuff so badly. I think my brother said the guy was not at all hostile towards my brother or vindictive, but he was perhaps upset.

And I feel like international students at my school, while generally maintaining pretty significant interest in the politics of their own nations, also had a fairly high level interest in ours during the 2008 elections, and from what they seemed to discuss in politics, I suspect they were rather interested in US politics in 2000/4. I DO recognize that this would be less surprising than a student coming to study in the States than it would be in someone who either never visits the states or only does so as a form of vacation/leisure.

Ok no more spinoff rant with litte-to-no evidence cited, but let me make a pointed response of marginal importance, evincing maximum anal tendencies (my favorite)

Why would I care about Obama for goodness sake? He is your president, not mine.

-I suspect the margin between the power any American poster at the watch, old enough to vote, committing voter fraud or not, probably has over the election of the US president and the power you or other non US citizen voter posters at the watch is, while certainly in our favor due to the vote, and our better ability to persuade other voters, only very slightly in our favor.

-Nations and governments are constructs; interest, loyalty, etc to nations and governments are not handed out by an angel to infants of various nations according to national boundaries, nor are they implanted by governments when you vacation in their borders. For my part, I am more interested - admittedly amateurishly so - in dead Chinese warlords, historians, etc than any living US politician (~fanciful, I know~)...probably more loyal to their probably fictionalized personalities too. And, I'm certainly not interested in Obama - I tried reading one of his books (pub'd pre-presidency) that was lying around the house and actually put it down about 50 pages in.

-While I certainly find the idea that US's head of state would be relatively irrelevant to other concerns for most or all countries besides US, and that (OK forgive me it is hard to actually conceptualize what I'm about to say)

people who live in countries besides US and are not citizens of US would not even really care about US and would mostly just pay attention to US current affairs as a source of entertainment and interest and would ultimately have a rather devil-may-care attitude about US even though we are so important WHY DONT YOU PAY ATTENTION TO US AND WATCH US!?
WEUS ARE THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD!!!

*panting, pale but with sweat streaming down his forehead, dashes out of the forum*
*returns 5 minutes later, a few buttons unbuttoned, tri-corner hat missing and hair ruffled messily, dabbing at his forehead with a "stars and stripes" handkerchief and humming "The Anacreontic Song" uncomfortably*

as I was saying, I do find those ideas (swallows) barely within the border of the nation of "conceivable" (which coincidentally has a surface area equal to US, the UK, and any territories colonized by the UK while US was a colony of the UK and any locations colonized/occupied with a reasonable measure of success by US since our independence). However, that is not to say that all such people who are utterly concerned with our government pass muster according to my excellent standards.

If those people are also ultimately rather unconcerned with their government, then that is fine. And if they support a platform or a politician that is relatively isolationist or laissez-faire, that is also fine. BUT, I suspect that a fair number of people who aren't US support platforms and politicians whom have at least a tertiary interest in US, in US people, and in US leader. In that sense,

If you're supporting a head of state or anyone with a role in foreign affairs in your country's government, and that person has any interest in non-US/US relations (US favorite kind of relations besides US/US relations!), then doesn't it make some sense that they might have some interest in US president and that it might be reasonable for you to take some interest in US president?

Yes, I recognize you don't have much control over who is myUS president, but I don't have much control over who is myUS president either (and, while this is really a separate subject, I am one of those dumb schmucks I was talking about earlier who is ultimately concerned in myUS government so that could be laid at my feet and the feet of others *shudders* like me).

(No I'm not shuddering at how they're like me I'm shuddering at their feet)