But He’s Just Like Bush!

So do we need to make a list of reasons why he’s not Bush already? I’d like to start with Obama’s interactions with the international community. I COMPLETELY forgot Bush opened the door wide open with Cuba just like Obama….(sarcasm)

So moderating on torture is acceptable to you Bob? Is that what you are saying? Please be clear, because that’s what it sounds like.The facts are there: Obama is Bush 2.0 on torture. That is clear. If you are going to spend the next 4 years cheering Obama on without addressing this, you are seriously morally challenged.You cannot have it both ways.

So STFU!Bob, the people that can think a little bit know that your comments are right on.Go!

One issue doth not make a Bush 2.0(but it is pretty disheartening nonetheless, IMO)

explain that please jack

Know what? Screw mileage taxes. Say what you like about Tom Friedman, but his idea of a $1.00/gallon gas tax is spot-on. We NEED gas price-controlled through taxation, anyway, and the proceeds will pay for conversion.

we should have done that after 9/11 Matt

But with a gas tax the terrorists win, veralynn! Logic be damned!

agree matt/vera. you think they won’t try to raise prices with the new cars requiring less fuel.

>>>The facts are there: Obama is Bush 2.0 on tortureWell, he hasn’t ordered any torture, so there’s one difference…little bit of a crowbar separation there.

Jack Twist,There’s no need to torture anyone. Ever. For God’s sake, man — torture doesn’t work, and it sure as hell doesn’t work fast.There will be compromises. I’m pretty sure Obama will keep some sort of operation going at Guantanamo, but it will be very different from the Bush legacy.Some Gitmo captives will be set free. Others will be transported to different countries. Some will be housed in those $50 million supermax prisons I see on The Learning Channel.But some will need to be kept in a special place, and that is Obama’s challenge — a point I freely acknowledge! But oh how different it can be this time.This time, we can bring in the Red Cross — and take other steps to help the world trust us again.This time, we can have a scrupulously fair court instead of Bush’s lame kangaroo courts, which are already abandoned.This time, we can do it right. Yes, we can.

gypsy, they better damn well make fuel-efficient cars if gasoline is more than $3.50 a gallon. Detroit learned that the hard way, which is going to cost us $billions$. A gallon gas tax is the way to pay.

What exactly is Bush 2.0? In what way, specifically, is Obama Bush 2.0 on torture, when one of the first things he did in office was issue a cease and desist on the subject of torture? The level of dishonesty here is astounding. Because he’s not handling Gitmo and the like the same way you’d like him to, makes him… WORSE than Bush on torture, when he’s ceased the practice?I’d really like someone to explain that one to me.I’ll give it an hour, but I don’t think anyone is going to type anything that makes that statement logical, sensible, or fair.QT

Remember telling people that we tortured is bad because it lets them know what tactics we use. Even though he stopped using them, which was bad. Of course, Pelosi should have told people we were torturing back in 2002, even though telling people about torture is treason.If you want to know the difference between Obama and Bush, it’s this: Obama’s supporters don’t have to maintain so many contradictory thoughts in their heads as we do. When Obama does something that disappoints us, we just say so.

“I’ll take that trade. We’d be insane not to.”Right on

On January 21, 2009, US President Barack Obama issued an executive order regarding the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and the individuals held there. This order asserted that “[they] have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus”.

I’m still waiting…QT

“This is important and historical, and anyone who’s stomping their feet and regretting their vote can bite me.”Wow. Is it really getting that desperate out there?Jesus.

Habeus Corpus was restored by the Supreme Court before Bush left office.from wikiOn June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush recognized habeas corpus rights for the Guantanamo prisoners. On October 7, 2008, the first Guantanamo prisoners were ordered released by a court considering a habeas corpus petition.[3]Habeus Corpus restored

>>>The facts are there: Obama is Bush 2.0 on torture.Because he didn’t release those photos? You’re insane. Bush 2.0 on torture. Such horseshit.President Obama BANNED torture outright, even for the CIA. Last year, Bush *vetoed* a bill banning the CIA’s use of torture. John McCain — MCCAIN! — voted against that bill.In his first week, President Obama reversed all of that.And by the way, Jack, maybe follow the site before you comment. My position on torture is abundantly clear.

Ennis Del Mar said>>Also, I’d like to add that Obama has not restored Habeas corpus. Simply put, that means Obama does not believe in the rule of law of US. Period. Stop trying to cover that up with trite political bs. Obama has made it clear that unlawful and indefinite detentions are useful to his administration, and will therefore continue the practice.Remember – that means YOU can be picked up and detained indefinitely, without being charged and without a trial.This is not just about “letting the terrorists win”. It’s about the rule of law, which is clear.and again>>And the delusions continue on Bob Cesca’s Goddamn Useless Blog.Shameless. Utterly Shameless.that is it? that is your answer after I posted that the Supreme Court restored Habeus BEFORE Bush left office? Jeepers man, open YOUR eyes.I will grant you Obama didn’t do it, he didn’t need to.

So let me get you trolls straight. Obama has expressed a desire to close Quantanamo. He signed an order to do so. (now stalled by congress playing politics) He has gone out of his way to appeal to other countries by literally extending his hand to them. We’re getting the biggest increase in fuel standards that I’ve personally seen in my lifetime. We have a president that can form complete sentences for once. We’re currently in the early stages of healhtcare reform. Regulatory reform, credit reform. You name it reform. But this isnt enough? He is Bush 2.0?I think many people got tired of being happy and have now gone back to complaining 24*7. Nevermind the fact that what we have now is 100 times better than Bush and certainly far better than McCain would have been. They have to occupy their short sighted intellect somehow. Might as well do so by nit-picking things to complain about while ignoring the big picture.Fucking whiners

Let’s start with some basic, commonsense facts:1. The Army Field Manual is not the Bible. It’s just the best that we have right now.2. Fighting terrorism is not like fighting conventional warfare – and therefore, the Army Field Manual, and lots of other practices we’ve got at our disposal, are likely not quite tailored to the challenge.So saying – there’s NO reason to suppose that Obama’s statement that stuff not in the army field manual will be used = Bush 2.0. It’s one possibility, but taken along with everything else, a pretty slim one. What it DOES mean is that Obama will need to work with his security advisors to come up with legal, ethical adaptations to a new form of warfare. Which is why everything is suspended pending review. Which is what Bush and co SHOULD have done, instead of just making shtuff up.__________________3. The Bush administration, confronted with these facts did two things badly – find a conventional war to fight so that they could get an easy win (and maybe some oil), and threw our values to the wind in creating a “war on terror” apparatus.That doesn’t mean we didn’t need a “war on terror” apparatus. Anybody with half a brain knows we do. Which is why liberals celebrated the cuts to the F-22 program – the argument was (on the left) that we were stockpiling weapons for wars we weren’t fighting. Well then – the same applies to our methodology – not just our equipment. Moreover – we’ve known this for years, but we’ve never really had the stomach to deal with it. So when we got attacked, the Bush administration simply went in whole-hogged with the trampling of our civil liberties. Our allies in Israel and other countries have been telling us for years that our civil liberties were in the way of our security – I heard that story from a South African who consulted with governments, back in 1998. What was needed, then, was for us to assess HOW to make the adjustment so that we didn’t abandon our values – and we should have done it when we weren’t quaking in our boots. Instead, we delayed action until we got attacked, and then acted in fear.That doesn’t mean acting was inappropriate – it means we flew off the handle, and now have to reign it in – and bring it back in line with our core values.QT

He may have banned torure, but “prisoner abuse” is still going on at Gitmo.In related news, a judge ruled this evening “that members in Al Qaeda or the Taliban could be detained, but that mere support for Al Qaeda activities is not a sufficient basis for the government to hold prisoners at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere” and “the government would have to proceed with a criminal indictment or perhaps a military commission or court-martial, all of which would are likely to give Guantanamo prisoner more rights than he currently enjoys.”http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/05/judge-rejects-obama-view-on-detaining.htmlmaybe one way or another, they’ll get their days in court.

that still pisses me off ceu….nicely done QT

But if I’m not mistaken isn’t there still the fear that Bagram is just going to replace Guantanamo? (The point I’m assuming the troll was trying to say, albeit in a douchey way)

More fuel efficient cars mean less revenue for local/federal governments.This means higher taxes on gas. Simple. That 1300 dollar payoff is gone.Also, increasing regulation on auto companies increases cost of entry into that particular line of business. Less startup company competition, which really drives to market what people want, because these companies are more flexible. Make the regulation arguement on these credit swaps/mortgage backed securities, I don’t see anyone buying those anytime soon.Less companies running things, easier to control. Central planning hasn’t worked in the past and it won’t work now.All this infrastructure money, where is it going, to unions, to private companies, who are owned by people who are well connected. Once again simple, it’s not going to the most innovative, fastest, most reliable company, sometimes it may, but most the time, as in chicago, it won’t. Those are your dollars, going to rich people, and growing the democratic base. Wise political strategy, bad for the country.

First, don’t pay any attention to E. Del Mar. He’s a troll of the worst kind and I’ve deleted his posts.But while I’m here, President Obama didn’t need to reinstate habeas because the Supreme Court did that back in June of last year. You know, before the president was the president.

Thanks, veralynn.And Alex, yes, that’s the worry. But from where I sit, with my admittedly limited, and not as smart as Greenwald position, Obama intends to lose a lot of cases. Politically, losing a case before the government is helpful in two ways – it reasserts the authority of the courts (over the deference of the courts that is apparently prevalent under Chief Justice Roberts) and it gives Obama political cover to do what needs to be done. This is also partly why Obama keeps deferring to Congress (at least it seems to me) – because Congress needs to reassert its role in government. Heck, Obama’s approach to the Republican party seems very much to be with the goal of getting a viable opposition party up and running, at least it seems that way to me. Huntsman 2016, anyone?Anyway, here’s Marc Ambinder on gay rights, reflecting the same pov I’m articulating here: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/the_administrations_dont_ask_dont_tell_strategy.phpQT

I just want my fucking flying car already. Barring that, a flying bike.

stewart is newts spiritual guide….n the Daily SHow

Mike,More fuel efficient cars means less revenue for government? Ok whats your solution, just have everyone keep moving along at 10-20 mpg for the rest of the century? Nice plan.Your argument about making it harder for startups to get into the market because of regulation is a pretty flat argument when it comes to the auto industry. The big-name companys have always control;ed the auto market, but there is enough them to have competition. You can’t just go find an investement firm and then all of a sudden you’ve got dealerships across the country. It doesn’t work that way and never will. This is a stupid sideshow argument.Infrastructure business and money going to unions? Oh noes!You are an unapologetic corporatist. Shill some more.

I see, so Mike, you already have the list of what companies that are getting the stimulus contracts money? And of course, it’s all going to mobbed up unionized companies from Chicago.Even if it were true, it’s still better than just giving all the contracts to KBR and Blackwater.

QT and Ashby -Very nicely done. You left me with nothing to add. Which is fine by me. As long as the facts get out there I am happy.Any startups in the auto business will be companies like Tesla and others doing leading edge tech innovation. The CAFE requirements either won’t apply at all, as in Tesla’s case, or will be inconsequential because high tech hybrids will get at least 45 MPG. Why are wrong-wingers so horribly ignorant on science and technology? Does praying to Jeebus baby make it impossible to understand science?I just don’t get the overwhelming misunderstanding of science and technology by the wrong wing. WTF?

Why can’t he seal the deal?

As I was driving(!) home from work this evening I was listening to NPR comments from someone from the Cato Institute saying that Obama’s mileage plan will not reduce oil dependence or CO2 emissions. He just said that in a snide sort of way with no, absolutely no, support for his argument.Geesh. If you don’t actually have to do research or support your arguments at these think tanks, I should get a job at one. What a maroon.Mike, you seem to have missed all of the new companies cropping up with great new automobile technologies. They just need the gov’t to release the money promised for them in order to make an entry into the market. Given today’s market, ten bucks would buy them all of the GM manufacturing facilities and supply chains.

How about we don’t get into running the auto business, and let them run themselves. They’ve failed to produce what customers want, creating too many big SUV’s. Big mistake, it should have put them under for others to pick up the pieces. If people don’t want to buy them, they won’t sell them.But no, government to the rescue. Chrysler and GM will be incredibly unprofitable, producing cars 10 years behind what people want, or what companies from other countries can deliver, this is because government is sllooowww (slower then what brought GM and chrysler to their demise). Lets see last time they dealt in the car business, back in the seventies, Carter, this was before my driving time, but I don’t want to wait in lines making me late to my government paid union job at Chrysler. Ethanol, another brilliant plan. I know you may hate big families, but how can those needing large vehicles commute in a smart car? Ahh well, most driving those will be stuck under a diesel dumptruck (those not needing to abide to restriction).

During the eight years of Bush we incessantly mocked the “values voters” and single-issue voters with their stupid litmus tests. Now that we’ve thrown Bushco out of office and are actually making some progress, all I hear on the left is “torture is the only issue that matters, everything else is secondary,” or “gay marriage is the only issue I care about,” etc., etc., etc.I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the left falls in love with some third-party gadfly in 2012, and we end up another Nader-type scenario.

Jack is nothing but a drive by troll who craps a dumb conservatard talking point and disappears. He is not looking for an education now, and it’s obvious he never has. But he serves a useful purpose nonetheless, because now when some other idiot spews the same garbage we’re all armed with the facts. So, thanks Jack, you ass!

The effect will be a single new national standard that will create a car and light truck fleet in the United States that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today, with an average of 35.5 miles per gallon.

Well, we have less than seven years. So, if everyone buys a car that gets fifty mpg, and then buys one that gets twenty, we have met the criteria. I noticed he said “average”. I wondering if that means what I think it means.Does it mean that amongst a fleet of offerings, a car makers AVERAGE must be 35mpg? Or does that mean actual cars on the road must average 35 mpg?Becuase if its the average of the fleet offering, then that 35 mpg number is worthless.

I would agree that these fuel standards are significant and indeed historical. However, I disagree with the idea it took much political capital or leadership to get there.In this economic climate I believe the auto industry would have gone along with pretty much anything.Bite Me?