An Impeachable Act of Bribery?

[saxitoxin]

I'm just gonna start out by saying I would never vote Nader..

*tickle tickle*

*Saxi Tickles Gabby!*

[Attila the Fun!]

Obama may not be delivering exactly what he offered but he is by far better then any true potential opposition, ie McCain/Palin. They would have been much worse in my eyes and in the eyes of everyone who still backs Obama.

Perhaps I missed something, but I don't see the difference. I know, I know, health care! But while the health care bill is an overall gain (though of course it has some big flaws), I'm not sure that it's much comfort to soldiers and civilians who are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's no great comfort to people being held indefinitely without habeas corpus rights, or people who are STILL being tortured in prisons in towns we can't even pronounce. That's not Obama "not delivering exactly what he offered." That's Obama delivering a McCain presidency, and it's something that a lot of people predicted. We can be all smiles over health care, but there were plenty of third party candidates who would have delivered that without the drawbacks of illegal wars, occupations, and continued erosion of civil liberties.

This idea that none of them were "true potential opposition" is a farce. No candidate starts with 1 million votes in their pocket, unless you give it to them by preemptively nullifying other candidates as "untrue potential opposition." And make no mistake about it. It's not NBC or FOX that makes that determination. It's YOU. If Democrats and Republicans aren't delivering what they promise, you have the option of voting for someone who will. Why are people so scared to vote for someone who doesn't have a brand name party behind them? Is it that important to be on the winning side? I think the civilians being killed in Pakistan would say no.

[saxitoxin]

#1 - SUPER-FUNZERS name Attila!

#2 - good points

#3 - When Jesse Ventura was running for Governor of Minnesota he was polling around 5% until the first televised debate. After the first televised debate his approval ratings jumped to more than 20% and kept increasing with each subsequent debate. Minnesota's gubernatorial debate is sponsored and controlled by a multi-stakeholder, non-governmental authority.

#4 - The so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates" is legally constituted as a private corporation jointly owned by the Democrat National Committee and the Republican National Committee - the two branches of the IDRP. After the near-debacle with Perot you will never see any candidate other than ones backed by the two legal owners of the debate series appear in it. If someone is appearing in a presidential debate that is the clarion call that said person is a hand-picked puppet schill like the mindless pig-whore Obama.

It doesn't matter how free the counting of ballots are if media access and campaign access is being manipulated (I think it was New Hampshire in 2008 where Bob Barr's ballot papers were "lost" by the Secretary of State until after the ballots had been printed [sans Bob Barr] at which time they were "found" again? I believe the same thing happened to the SWP candidate in Louisiana, helping to herald the pig-whore Obama to victory there.) I'm reminded of this exchange from a great American writer ...

"Let's talk politics, to please Guy!"

"Sounds fine," said Mrs. Bowles. "I voted last election, same as everyone, and I laid it on the line for President Noble. I think he's one of the nicest-looking men who ever became president."

"Oh, but the man they ran against him!"

"He wasn't much, was he? Kind of small and homely and he didn't shave too close or comb his hair very well."

"What possessed the 'Outs' to run him? You just don't go running a little short man like that against a tall man. Besides -he mumbled. Half the time I couldn't hear a word he said. And the words I did hear I didn't understand!"

"Fat, too, and didn't dress to hide it. No wonder the landslide was for Winston Noble. Even their names helped. Compare Winston Noble to Hubert Hoag for ten seconds and you can almost figure the results."

"Well, Mr. Montag," said Mrs. Phelps, "do you want us to vote for a man like that?"

[saxitoxin]

Excuse ol' Saxi, when you're as old as me, it's hard to remember details.

Congressman Barr's papers were "lost" in Connecticut, not New Hampshire. My apologies to the fine residents of the Granite State. Vivre libre ou mourir!

http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/10/23/barr-loses-connecticut-ballot-access-case/

[Titanic]

Obama may not be delivering exactly what he offered but he is by far better then any true potential opposition, ie McCain/Palin. They would have been much worse in my eyes and in the eyes of everyone who still backs Obama.

Perhaps I missed something, but I don't see the difference. I know, I know, health care! But while the health care bill is an overall gain (though of course it has some big flaws), I'm not sure that it's much comfort to soldiers and civilians who are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's no great comfort to people being held indefinitely without habeas corpus rights, or people who are STILL being tortured in prisons in towns we can't even pronounce. That's not Obama "not delivering exactly what he offered." That's Obama delivering a McCain presidency, and it's something that a lot of people predicted. We can be all smiles over health care, but there were plenty of third party candidates who would have delivered that without the drawbacks of illegal wars, occupations, and continued erosion of civil liberties.

Stimulus package, high speed trains, more investment in clean energy, Wall Street reform (not nearly enough but at least its something), end date for combat troops in Iraq, more pressure on Pakistan through financial aid, reducing nuclear stockpiles, G20 coordinated effort of bailouts and more Keynesian methods, end Bush tax cuts for the richest, more power to the EPA and Labor department, cutting out wasted money in the Pentagon (ie. F-22), criticising Israel on settlements and trying to mediate a ME peace, reaching out to the Muslim world etc......

Yes there is an equally long list of the stuff he has done that McCain would have, but when he has done a lot different I am glad we have got the best worst option rather than the worst worst. Also McCain I would have been able to tolerate, but Palin really is a loose cannon and god knows wth she would have done in her job. Truth be told it was actually after McCain nominated her that I went from indecisive to stong Obama supporter.

[PLAYER57832]

The job was an unpaid advisory position. Still, it does not seem to have been legal.

[spurgistan]

It makes me sad that no matter how much Obama disappoints those people who were naive enough to elect him, they still won't wise up and vote for Nader (or any third party candidate). That would just be throwing their vote away!

Obama may not be delivering exactly what he offered but he is by far better then any true potential opposition, ie McCain/Palin. They would have been much worse in my eyes and in the eyes of everyone who still backs Obama.

You mean the 30% or so of the country who are die hard liberals? Since we know most of the independents completely disagree with his government expansion.

Well he still has an approval rating of around 48%/49%, and Dems/GOP/Ind. split is around 1/3 each so roughly half the independants approve of him atm and considering the state of the economy that still fairly impressive given how intense the Republican opposition to him has been.

Rasmussen Reports has had Obama's Strongly Disapprove numbers nearly identical to his TOTAL Approve numbers, both in the low to mid 40s. Pretty bad for someone who won 52% of the vote and had over 60% Approval when he took office.

Rasmussen has by far the most conservative-friendly polling numbers of the major polling agencies. I figure you use their numbers because you know that, but, while that doesn't make their numbers incorrect, Rasmussen is not the death-knell of the Obama administration.

[saxitoxin]

I am glad we have got the best worst option rather than the worst worst.

"we" who?

[Attila the Fun!]

I wish I had your optimism. I would point out that almost everything on that list from high speed trains to reducing nuclear stockpiles (and "criticizing" Israel? Is that really the best we can hope for?) has yet to materialize. And sure, it's still relatively early. No one can work miracles. But even if he delivers on ALL of those promises (big IF), he'll still have screwed up the big one: war. I'm not picking on this because it's my own big issue. I'm harping on it because at over 49% of the federal budget, it affects all the others. If the corporate parties weren't so gung-ho on perpetual war, if their own coffers weren't tied so closely to those of Lockheed Martin and the like, we very well might have all the things you and I wish for. The F-22 scrap was an inspiring move, but it hasn't stopped that horrendous waste of life, treasure, and energy. Hell, we'll probably gain 10 more Predator and Reaper drones for every canceled F-22.

No, I'll still take a third party candidate who will actually deliver. There are candidates out there who will stop selling arms to Israel, stop bombing Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, end the shadow war with Iran, ratify the NPT, and actually reduce our nuclear stockpile, all of which would free up resources for projects that actually help people. But for that to happen people would have to vote for them, and who would want to do that?

And, on a side note, I should point out that we can't actually be sure just how much we're spending in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan because those numbers are STILL being routed through emergency spending bills rather than through the budget, as a certain someone promised they would be.

[Titanic]

I wish I had your optimism. I would point out that almost everything on that list from high speed trains to reducing nuclear stockpiles (and "criticizing" Israel? Is that really the best we can hope for?) has yet to materialize. And sure, it's still relatively early. No one can work miracles. But even if he delivers on ALL of those promises (big IF), he'll still have screwed up the big one: war. I'm not picking on this because it's my own big issue. I'm harping on it because at over 49% of the federal budget, it affects all the others. If the corporate parties weren't so gung-ho on perpetual war, if their own coffers weren't tied so closely to those of Lockheed Martin and the like, we very well might have all the things you and I wish for. The F-22 scrap was an inspiring move, but it hasn't stopped that horrendous waste of life, treasure, and energy. Hell, we'll probably gain 10 more Predator and Reaper drones for every canceled F-22.

No, I'll still take a third party candidate who will actually deliver. There are candidates out there who will stop selling arms to Israel, stop bombing Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, end the shadow war with Iran, ratify the NPT, and actually reduce our nuclear stockpile, all of which would free up resources for projects that actually help people. But for that to happen people would have to vote for them, and who would want to do that?

And, on a side note, I should point out that we can't actually be sure just how much we're spending in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan because those numbers are STILL being routed through emergency spending bills rather than through the budget, as a certain someone promised they would be.

Yer I pretty much agree with this.

[Night Strike]

Rasmussen has by far the most conservative-friendly polling numbers of the major polling agencies. I figure you use their numbers because you know that, but, while that doesn't make their numbers incorrect, Rasmussen is not the death-knell of the Obama administration.

That's because they poll likely voters, not just anyone of voting age, and they've been the most accurate polling group for several election cycles. That's a pretty reliable resume to me. Besides, the public is much more conservative than the media and administration would like you to believe.

The job was an unpaid advisory position. Still, it does not seem to have been legal.

And there are serious doubts about the credibility of that White House statement. If it was referred to as a "job", why is it unpaid (every citizen's definition of job is something that's paid)? If it took place from June-July of last year, how was their just one phone call from Clinton to Sestak? Were the parties trying to get their stories straight Thursday when the White House just happened to talk to both Clinton and Sestak's brother?

[Phatscotty]

but, the white house said....

[saxitoxin]

Nader Slams Pelosi on Silence Over Independent Scientific Advisory Office

http://nader.org/index.php?/archives/21 ... r-OTA.html

[jefjef]

I am glad we have got the best worst option rather than the worst worst.

"we" who?

Well Saxi. This Brit acknowledges that the President of the United States is, in all effect, also the President of our colony. England.

[Titanic]

I am glad we have got the best worst option rather than the worst worst.

"we" who?

Well Saxi. This Brit acknowledges that the President of the United States is, in all effect, also the President of our colony. England.

The colony is called the UK ffs.

[PLAYER57832]

So, here you sit, angry because a man was offered an unpaid job by someone in the Obama administration, to encourage him to bow out of the primary for the party to which Obama belongs.

It was wrong.

BUT, here is the question. Was it more wrong than allowing BP to drill with a lick and a promise of protection for the coast?

Was it more wrong than shuffling hundreds of people, boys as young as 12, to prison without any charge, without any hope of a trial?

Was it more wrong than taking us into a war based on evidence that was, even then known to be falsely given?

So, why is Obama worthy of impeachment and Bush gets a wink and a nod?

[tzor]

So, why is Obama worthy of impeachment and Bush gets a wink and a nod?

Ah yes, PLAYER57832, still a proud member of the SPEBBE (Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Blaming Bush for Everything).

Now let's make one thing perfectly clear; there is nothing whatsoever with the severity of the crime and the threat of presidential impeachment. In fact it is often the opposite relationship; the only thing that gets threatened with impeachment are coverups of minor trivial matters; Nixon was threatened over the coverup of bugging the opposition; Clinton was impeached over the coverup of sexual matters. Clearly there is no coverup in this case, so there probably won't be an impeachment.

Note also that coverups of major shit; weapons of mass destruction, lack of a legal birth certificate, and so forth are never tried; only the minor stuff.

[PLAYER57832]

So, why is Obama worthy of impeachment and Bush gets a wink and a nod?

Ah yes, PLAYER57832, still a proud member of the SPEBBE (Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Blaming Bush for Everything).

I mentioned 2 very specific issues, things which he did. My original post was much further reaching and covered many more issues, most of which had little to do with Bush. That said, Bush had the previous 8 years and Obama's reign is too soon to really evaluate. So, when it comes to impacts today, a lot does rest with Bush -- either because of what he did or what he could have, but did not do.

My point, however, was not Bush, it was the comparative reaction to Bush, versus the reaction to Obama. And no, despite the claims to the contrary, even the highly ultra liberal rhetoric (which absolutely does NOT include me!), was no where near as nasy toward Bush and was far more specific to his policies, not the outright, purely personnal attacks the right wing seems to think is OK to lodge against Obama.

Now let's make one thing perfectly clear; there is nothing whatsoever with the severity of the crime and the threat of presidential impeachment. In fact it is often the opposite relationship; the only thing that gets threatened with impeachment are coverups of minor trivial matters; Nixon was threatened over the coverup of bugging the opposition; Clinton was impeached over the coverup of sexual matters. Clearly there is no coverup in this case, so there probably won't be an impeachment. Note also that coverups of major shit; weapons of mass destruction, lack of a legal birth certificate, and so forth are never tried; only the minor stuff.

The birth certificate issue WAS resolved, its just that some people will never be statisfied, even given the firmest evidence in existance. (and this was not that certain, no).

As for the rest.. that is exactly what is wrong. People go ape over tiny things that really and truly just don't matter. I mean, I don't approve of Bush's college drinking OR Clinton's use of Marihuana, but as long as it didn't impinge his ability to serve as president, I could care less about it.

But I will go further. I will say that this is what capitalism wrought.

BP was given a "wink and a nod" because the oil/gas was such a "vital need" for us all. Time could not be wasted ensuring that the procedures were truly safe or even really looking into what the full and true impacts could be. In fact, a limit to liability was passed of $75,000,000 so that smaller companies would "not be shoved out of the market". All in the name of putting forward commerce and meeting public demands.

Funny, seems like commerce is being impacted on the Gulf, and not just now, but for the next 2 generations at least just by this one act.

But, that's how it goes. We have Love Canal just north of here. You can hardly name a stream in the East that isn't heavily polluted, plus many are impacted by dams. Even those with "wild and scenic" designations are not truly pristine, except in some small stretches (and even that is debateable). None of these things, by law, even need to be considered. They are not "part of doing business", they are "externalities", and making companies take them into account would "make things too expensive".

Never mind the expense that we, our children, our great grandchildren now must pay to clean up and deal with each of these messes.

Worse, even if you say "well, all that happened before we knew", you are denying the truth. We have rail cars moving below my house, below our school (I live directly next to the public school), that carry substances no one in this entire region can deal with, should there be an accident. It is up to us, the community to protect ourselves. The companies transporting the stuff have no obligation to ensure that communities have the funds or equipment to deal with damage. Of course, after the fact, then we can always sue. Lawsuit's won't bring back a houseful of memories. They won't bring back lives or the health of men who go and fight, knowing they are not protected, but hoping to give other townspeople time to get out. I know this because my husband is one of those men, as are many of our friends.

Capitalism, markets can work, but our system right now that calls itself the "free" market is really anything but truly free. It promotes exploitation. It BEGS companies to go out and do whatever they can get away with, becuase they only have to answer once a problem occurs and then, rarely have to answer even a portion of the harm they cause.

The examples are many.. far too many to list anywhere, nevermind this post. However, just take the Exxon Valdeze. It is significant because there was never any real doubt about fault. Exxon denied some culpability, but the fault was never in question. Still, 20 years later and the company is still fighting some payouts, the fisheries has STILL not been restored, may never be restored, because once you take out a species and the entire ecological web of which it was a part, it doesn't just come back. Other species may move in, the genetics may not be there to allow restoration. (Walruses, for example are too genetically similar, even though their numbers have grown) and the base species, the multiple things that set up the web, ALL of those, each part has to come back. If even a few pieces are missing, then the entire system is hampered, will never come back the same and often won't come back in any meaningful way at all.

So much of the newscasts of the Gulf minimize the damage. They do this because the truth is so tragic. Ironically, the beaches, the seafood you can buy right now down there is perfectly safe. Ironically, the tourists that are staying away are making mistakes. But, that doesn't mean the damage isn't real. It means that the damage is long term damage. It means that the damage is to the nursery grounds of most of the prime commerical fishing species and many endangered species are all being harmed. Brown Pelicans, not commercially important, but important as a symbol, have only just gone off the endangered species list. Whole colonies are not coated with oil, a generation of eggs doomed to die, along with many adults.

Many of you don't like to ponder all this. Its too negative, better to poo poo these "stupid environmentalists". A natural reaction, I suppose, and exactly the reason we are in this mess right now.

Its time to stop. Its time to stop pretending that consequences to others, consequences to the environment, consequences to the world don't matter... be it the World Bank offering "wonderful loans", but only at the price of requiring small nations to fully open their markets to highly subsidized American and European agricultural products, a policy that is a big part of why Haiti, just to name a familiar example now, this is part of why they went from a nation that could feed itself (though not well), with rice to a nation that now cannot. A nation that experiences famine, despite acres of fertile land. The farmers were forced out, had to go to cities to get work. This means that not only was the land left empty, but the knowledge left as well. Never mind, though we have some "wonderful companies" happy to "educate" the poor folks to the wonders of "modern agriculture".. its fertilizers, its pesticides.. its dependence on oil, on foreign manufacturers, on plants so dangerous that no one wants to live next door.

Many of you here post about the arrogance and hubris of our debt. Know what the REAL debt is? The REAL debt is the minerals and forests our great grandchildren will not have. The real debt is clean water so often not available any longer, a system of gauranteed pure public water being replaced by a not gauranteed system of bought water. Bought water sold in plastic containers, made from oil and that will wind up in landfills. Landfills on land that used to be farmland, or forest or, sometimes, swamp.

Yet.. that just doesn't matter. Mention that and you are just a "crazy environmentalist". You say that because it is easy. Looking at the problems, that is hard and frustrating. Note, I don't say that business is easy. I say that it is far easier to just ignore all these things, dismiss them as "externalities".

Well, guess what. Nothing is external to our lives. Just go ask Louisiana fishermen. Go ask the former residents of Love Canal, Go ask... your grandparents. Ask them what they had that you will never, ever have. Some of it is good, yes. But, also ask if they really understood, understand the impacts. If they are honest, most won't know. If they really do understand, most will consider they made plenty a poor bargain.

I am not saying we have to do away with it all. I AM saying we have to stop acting as if accidents "just will not happen". We have to stop acting as if cleaning up after something like this is even possible, never mind pretending it really fixes anything.

[Phatscotty]

It is turning out that Obama handing out federal jobs and appointments as a means to deny the people their democratic right to representation was standard operating procedure. Now in Colorado, The Obama administration offered a politician a job to drop out of the race......

Damn sloppy Obama!

[tzor]

The birth certificate issue WAS resolved, its just that some people will never be statisfied, even given the firmest evidence in existance. (and this was not that certain, no).

From what I remember the birth certificate issue was not resolved, the short form is not proof of a live birth on US soil, only the long form would have enough information to prove that and this was never disclosed. This does not in and of itself mean anything one way or the other. So instead of saying that it was "resolved" it is better to say that it became a non issue. Clearly this issue will remain with us forever.

Just as people are blaming the election of 2000 on the recent divorce of Al and Tipper Gore.

[tzor]

Capitalism, markets can work, but our system right now that calls itself the "free" market is really anything but truly free. It promotes exploitation. It BEGS companies to go out and do whatever they can get away with, becuase they only have to answer once a problem occurs and then, rarely have to answer even a portion of the harm they cause.

The problem is not capitalism; the problem is humanity. Not planing for the long term is a common problem of all from corporations to governments. (This is why most government budgets are "balanced" through accounting tricks and the Federal goverment "balances" the books through the biggest trick of all; the Federal Reserve.)

The founding fathers realized this and put into a place a system of checks and balances. That is the key here, not any specific checks and balances but the concept of checks and balances. In the "free" market, competition is supposed to be one of those checks and balances, but it can't be the only one and it has to go under the assumption that these checks and balances don't try to work together to rig the system. That leads to corruption, stagnation and failure.

Just like the lax permitting process and lax regulation process led in part to this current disaster.

P.S. If you want to take perverse pleasure, know that the economic damage here may be less than the economic damage in the UK, where BP stock was the bulwark of the pension retirement systems there.

[Phatscotty]

the free market in America has not been free for a century

gov't has a loooooong track record of permanent intrusions into the free market.

[PLAYER57832]

P.S. If you want to take perverse pleasure, know that the economic damage here may be less than the economic damage in the UK, where BP stock was the bulwark of the pension retirement systems there.

Not even close to true. And that you might think so points strongly to how little most people understand of not just the gulf, but our dependence on the natural world around us, in general AND their fragility when utterly abused.

Worse, in a case like this, much of the future economic damage will never be known. How do you possibly quantify the benefit an unkown species, or simply not yet developed species might provide? And, lest you think I exaggerate, virtually every prime commercial species today was once considered "garbage", including trout, lobster, etc.

[tzor]

P.S. If you want to take perverse pleasure, know that the economic damage here may be less than the economic damage in the UK, where BP stock was the bulwark of the pension retirement systems there.

Not even close to true. And that you might think so points strongly to how little most people understand of not just the gulf, but our dependence on the natural world around us, in general AND their fragility when utterly abused.

Worse, in a case like this, much of the future economic damage will never be known. How do you possibly quantify the benefit an unkown species, or simply not yet developed species might provide? And, lest you think I exaggerate, virtually every prime commercial species today was once considered "garbage", including trout, lobster, etc.

BP shares dip may hit pension funds

The steep slide in BP's share price is bad news for UK pension funds - the vast majority of which will hold a stake in the company.

Defined benefit pension schemes are typically thought to have around 1.5% of their assets invested directly in BP, accounting for around 6% of all the money they hold in UK equities.

But some funds may hold considerably more, for example a pension scheme that tries to replicate the performance of the FTSE 100 would have around 6% of its total assets invested in the company.

BP's share price has now fallen by around a third since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank on April 20, killing 11 workers.

It is difficult to put a figure on exactly how much this will have wiped off the value of pension schemes, but it is thought to be hundreds of millions of pounds, if not billions of pounds, once the impact on defined contribution schemes and personal pensions is also factored in.

Back to the gulf. The question you raise is the economic potential for species that the spill might make extinct. That's a pretty broad accusation here, but in the case of fishing the answer is stranger than you might think. The answer is contained in the saying "one man's garbage is another man's treasure." I know the fishing industry enough to see that in practice again and again; fish that were generally thought to be trash, for one reason or another "discovered" and having been discovererd as "treasure" almost fished to extinction. The "fad" factor in the fish industry is far greater than you might otherwise think. Likewise, there are other causes (man made and natural) that often cause one or another species to go to near extinction conditions.

There is no doubt that this is a DISASTER of the worst possible magnitude and expressing it in "economic" impact alone does not do it justice. But the ecomonic ripples do impact others in strange locations. This is very similiar to the collapse of the big three auto makers in the United States, so powerful is BP in the makeup of the UK economy.

[Titanic]

P.S. If you want to take perverse pleasure, know that the economic damage here may be less than the economic damage in the UK, where BP stock was the bulwark of the pension retirement systems there.

There pension funds, the BP stock will rise again later in the year when they announce another $12-$15 billion profit for the quarter. A short term down is not really that crucial to pension fund.