On Jan 19, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Lawrence Sica wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Roger Howard wrote: > >> >> On Jan 19, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Lawrence Sica wrote: >>> No offense but they just need to shut up and let Obama get in >>> office before they start making demands. >> >> No "they" don't. We all have a right to a voice and an opinion. Obama >> is a grownup, he signed up for this and he and his advisors can sort >> out the issues, but no one has to shut-up... that's a despicable >> attitude, one fortunately not shared by the new administration and >> one >> that reeks of blindly following.. not something I think this new >> president has asked for.' > > Actually, I think they do. In this case they are not even correct in > how the law works.
8 treaties and federal laws saying we can not torture an inconvenient time ? here's the one I had wanted to send: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzOyY8pcuQo > I find it funny about the types who pushed hard to > get Bush out and then immediately decided to start going after Obama > before he actually has really done anything concrete to go after for. > It's one thing to say "look at this please" it is quite another to go > into an immediate attack mode full on with the rhetoric before there > is anything to attack on. They are stuck in the same mentality from > when Bush was really around. They need to move on and rethink what > they are saying. History is rife with examples of the damage this > attitude has caused in the wake of any serious political change. > > This has nothing to do with blindly following. This has to do with > what needs to be done first. This also has to do with actually > looking at what you are asking for before you make all sorts of grand > pronouncements about what someone has to do and why. They are not > saying "hey can you look at this" they are saying "look at this or > else we brand you a criminal too" I'd say there is a bit of a > difference in the attitude. The former is fine, the latter is just > stupid and needs to not be said. The latter leads to all sorts of bad > things. This is not 2004, this is not 2000. If you look at Obamas > general attitude it is not vindictiveness, their attitude on the other > hand smacks of it. > >> >> >>> They also need to understand there are more important problems right >>> now than a public circus. >> >> The US govt. is more than capable of multitasking, and again it is >> not >> up to *us* to decide the order of operations - we can demand >> accountability and yet understand that he's got other things going on >> - he has specifically acknowledged that in his role he doesn't get to >> pick and choose the one thing he wants to focus on. >> > > Actually it is up to us in the form of talking to our elected > officials. This is a gov't for the people by the people. It was > letting Bush do what he wanted without said input that led us down > this road. It was ignoring what the congress was doing that led us > down this road. And I'd say this article, hell most of the ones from > commondreams.org now seem to not understand that the world is not only > their small sphere and he has, perhaps, more pressing concerns. They > are so fixated on going after Bush and seem to have a sense of > entitlement that Obama must do what he says. They are fools for > acting in that manner. > >> Just because his current position may be soft on this issue, and >> people are hyper-sensitive to criticizing Obama this early on, >> doesn't >> mean we need to avoid the tough issues. He asked to be, and will be, >> held to a higher standard, which in my mind means not sweeping under >> the rug massive abuses of the Constitution just because it's >> politically inconvenient. >> > > Soft? I'd say more like nuanced and realistic. This is not about > political convenience. It's about the massive breakdown of the > structure of the federal gov't and the economy. I'd say the first > order of business is to fix things then go after the root cause. In > any troubleshooting situation you fix the problem before you try and > solve the underlying causes. Restore then repair. > > What do you think would happen right now if Obama on his first day of > office started arresting Bushies? Really what do you think would > happen? > > --Larry > _______________________________________________ > OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] > http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters > List hosted at http://cat5.org/ _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
