U.S. Senator Wyden Raises Constitutional Questions About ACTA 239
bs0d3 writes "In a written letter which can be found here, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden questions President Obama's authority
to sign ACTA without Congressional approval. 'It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law,' Wyden writes. 'But regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law ... the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress' authority, absent congressional approval.'"
I actually agree with the Democrat here (Score:5, Insightful)
Trade agreements are a form of treaty, and treaties have to be voted on by the Senate. The Constitution does this for a good reason, preventing the President from unilaterally committing the United States to international agreements. Wyden is right on this. And ACTA is clearly a trade agreement. Send this to the Senate first for a vote.
Re:I actually agree with the Democrat here (Score:5, Interesting)
He knows what he's talking about when it comes to technology, and is usually on the correct side on issues such as copyright, privacy, security, etc.
His views on economics are painfully wrong, though.
Re: (Score:2)
What can I say, we breed good Senators in Oregon. We had the very cross-party-lines Republicans in Hatfield and Packwood, now we have the cross-party-lines Democrat in Wyden. (Smith crossed lines occasionally, but also voted against Oregon's voter-mandated interests at times - Merkley hasn't been in long enough for me to figure him out yet.)
Re:I actually agree with the Democrat here (Score:4, Insightful)
I read somewhere that the primary function of a Senator from Oregon is to drive all the rest of the Senate crazy.
Note. This is a *GOOD* thing.
Thank you, Senator Wyden.
Re: (Score:2)
Your forgot about Wayne Morse [wikipedia.org], one of the two Senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which massively escalated the Vietnam War. He didn't think that the President had the constitutional grounds to take military action with the absence of a formal declaration of war. Sound familiar to any recent history?
He also crossed party lines to endorse Mark Hatfield for Governor in 1966, which really pissed off the Oregon Democratic Party. They put up a primary challenger in 1968, who he beat; but lo
Re: (Score:3)
His views on economics are painfully wrong, though.
I think you can make an argument that all views about economics are wrong. I've yet to see any economic 'theory' make any wholesale sense. I've tried numerous times to read various economic books but after the first couple of chapters my brain feels like it got slapped around in a logic blender and my eyes defocus and my head asplodes.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but the "let the market sort it out" theory didn't work out too well either, did it? Essentially, it led to two possibilities: Either bail 'em out or be dragged down with 'em. If you allow companies or at least economic branches to become big enough that their failure takes the rest of the country with them, you know it's time to realize that the market won't "sort it out". Why should it? It's most beneficial for the ones that dictate the course the market takes to do anything but allow it to "sort i
Re: (Score:3)
There is no "true free market". Except in terrible places like Mogadishu and Peshawar, and various other slave trading centers, now and through history.
Citicorp specifically, but Goldman Sachs and the rest of the banks all bribed Congress to legislate the system they all crashed. The deregulation, specifically of Glass-Steagal by Gramm-Leach-Bliley, was very obviously the cause of the crashes that the previous regulation had directly prevented for over a half century.
The distorted set of laws you're at leas
Re:I actually agree with the Democrat here (Score:4, Funny)
Cue Von Mises/CATO reference in 3,2,1...
Re: (Score:3)
Because of course the banking crisis about to hit Europe shows that socialist policies totally work right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Right that is not politically motivated at all. Obama for doing nothing gets a Nobel prize, Bush gets an arrest warrant.
I am sorry but international law is BULLSHIT, the soon this nations take George Washington's advice and STOPS making treaties, and stops participating in organizations like the World Bank, IMF, and UN which limit our sovereignty, the sooner we will all be better off.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because if we pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist, we'll solve everything!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush broke the law, and people died.
Obama graciously said he didn't think he deserved the medal. HOWEVER, he immediatly started taknig action to improve our international relations.
So, don't compare the two.
"George Washington's advice and STOPS making treaties, "
wtf are you talking about? Washington signed several treaties.
Re: (Score:3)
Look at it this way: If you accept this precedent, there might be a warrant out for Obama someday too for all these extrajudicial killings.
Re: (Score:2)
Even people who are primarily known for their evil often have done good things for the countries they otherwise subjugated. A good example: Adolph Hitler, obviously our poster child for evil, he also orchestrated the building of the autobahn road network in Germany prior to WW2.
Actually, no, Hitler orchestrated nothing, he just happened to come into power around the time the autobahn road network was actually build:
Construction of the Cologne-Bonn autobahn begins in October [1929] - using mostly human labor and very few machines in an effort to create jobs in a period of high unemployment. [...] This first German autobahn segment will be completed in 1932, a year before Hitler comes to power. [emphasis mine]
and
Hitler inaugurates "his" autobahn network with the so-called "first cut of the spade" (erster Spatenstich) near Frankfurt on 23 September [1933]. This would have been impossible without the earlier work of HaFraBa and Stufa in the 1920s.
reference [about.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is very obvious that you hold Hitler in much higher esteem than Obama. So don't worry, we wont be confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of us lefty liberals did point out (to pointed objection and the frequent charge of treason) just how much Bush was trashing precedent and stomping on civil rights. Glad to see you caught up with us on that
It's an interesting philosophical question though...who is 'worse', the initiator of the crimes or the successor who continues to commit them because they are now acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
One can usually tell how intellectually honest an Obama detractor is by gauging their opinion on Bush Jr. :-) Just having an "R" or a "D" after one's name doesn't excuse one's actions, even if it's the same "R" or "D" as yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Clinton sign the Kyoto thing, but the Senate never passed it? (Please excuse my memory) At this point, I really have no clue what is law anymore since all 3 branches change it on a whim anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No he didn't. Clinton never signed it because the Senate voted against it 95 - 0. At the very end of his term he did sign an executive order reaffirming America's adherence of Kyoto, but he didn't actually sign the treaty. At that point in time not a one of the 167 signatories of Kyoto had actually ratified it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Effectively, that means we happen to more or less adhere to it but are not bound to do so in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
But what about cases where it is not, like now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I actually agree with the Democrat here (Score:5, Insightful)
You assume the Senate is functioning...
But what about cases where it is not, like now?
The Senate is functioning as it was designed to, as a break on both the House and the Presidency. The Senate was never supposed to be a rubber-stamp, for either the President or the House.
The whole point of a Senate is to have a group of men to take a deep look at what the House (which was always supposed to be the popular voice of the people) passes in the heat of the moment, and it was designed to prevent the President from becoming a Caesar. This is why treaties have to be voted on by the Senate, and why the President's appointments to his cabinet and to SCOTUS have to be reviewed, scrutinized, and voted on by the Senate. This is also why Senators were not popularly elected when the Constitution was written, but appointed by state legislators. The whole idea of the founders was to put a second party into the Congress that was indirectly responsible to the people (via their elected state houses), but not popularly elected, and thus less subject to the passions of the moment. I used to support popular election of Senators, but the older I've gotten, the more I think the founders had it right in the first place, and that the 17th Amendment was a mistake.
Also, if you want things to pass easier in the Senate... the way they do in the House, with a simple majority vote, well, the way is clear here. Just demand that the Senate drop their unique rules requiring 60 votes. That rule is not in the Constitution, but an internal Senate rule (which the Constitution permits).
Just be careful before you demand this. Because if the Senate goes to simple-majority vote, so can future Senates... ones where the other party is the majority.
Re:I actually agree with the Democrat here (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the person to whom you reply would contest that your interpretation of the goings-on in Congress is naive. While everyone would agree with the principal as you state:
"The whole point of a Senate is to have a group of men to take a deep look at what the House (which was always supposed to be the popular voice of the people) passes in the heat of the moment," ... few people believe that's what actually happening. We have seen *many* acts and bills passed in the heat of the moment and it's hard to argue that our Senators are as much philosophers as they are self- and party-interested tacticians.
People don't complain about the difficulty of things passing in any house of Congress nearly as much as they do the severe biases that allows some things to pass and others not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I actually agree with the Democrat here (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea of the founders was to put a second party into the Congress that was indirectly responsible to the people (via their elected state houses), but not popularly elected, and thus less subject to the passions of the moment.
The reason they weren't elected, and why there are two for every state, is that they were intended to be the body that looked out for the interests of the country as a whole and not the specific interests of the state they came from or the voters therein. Ratification of treaties falls squarely under that baliwick, since treaties tend to have an impact on the entire country and not just one or two states. Ditto federal appointments.
The 17th amendment was a big mistake, because now all we have are people looking out for their own skins and getting re-elected instead of looking out for the US. This has turned the Senate into nothing more than a posh version of the House.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you have this wrong. "The reason they weren't elected, and why there are two for every state, is that they were intended to be the body that looked out for the interests of the country as a whole and not the specific interests of the state they came from or the voters therein. "
This is inherently wrong when you consider that the constitution created to sets of co-equal sovereignty. The intention as I read the constitution was to create an upper house where the concerns of the States would be taken
Re: (Score:3)
To further your point, the original purpose of the Senate was that they represented the interests of the states, not directly the people. And the states desperately need representation, as we can see now with a federal government that puts onerous regulations on them with no recourse and no direct representation. Note that when I say "states" I really mean the states, not the people living there (who are indirectly the states).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole point of a Senate is to have a group of men to take a deep look at what the House (which was always supposed to be the popular voice of the people) passes in the heat of the moment, and it was designed to prevent the President from becoming a Caesar.
Well, no. The point of Congress and the judiciary is to keep the President from becoming a Caesar. The point of the Senate was to give property a voice in Congress to go with the voice of the people over in the House. About a hundred years ago, we got wise to that and changed Senate appointment to a democratic vote of the people, so now it's just a harder way to get into Congress and attracts those who have enough political clout they could wipe their nose on a House seat. They tend to be the more exper
Moderation instructions. (Score:2)
.. to the resurgence of pettiness as the primary means of political discourse ....
+7 incisive
Re: (Score:2)
Now, however, owing to the resurgence of pettiness as the primary means of political discourse, it's indistinguishable from the House except in the cost incurred in stealing the votes necessary to enter it.
It's indistinguishable from the House because, thanks to the 17th Amendment, it's nothing but another version of the House with longer terms and more power.
Re:I actually agree with the Democrat here (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree, ACTA is not, at heart, a trade agreement at all. It's a law enforcement treaty focusing on intellectual property. It aims to harmonise the enforcement measure with regard to intellectual property across the signatories. There's evidence for this in every portion of ACTA, but you just have to look at the headings for the two substantive chapters:
This doesn't diminish your point or Senator Wyden's. To quote an excellent article [american.edu] by Sean Flynn, ACTA would affect:
The president doesn't have any enumerated (or un-enumerated) powers that cover this territory, indeed, the power to regulate intellectual property, I understand, is an enumerated power of congress (Article I, sec 8 of the constitution). Therefore the agreement should be submitted to congress by the president and more specifically by the USTR under his authority.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're arguing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (aka ACTA) isn't a trade agreement?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try again. The full name is "Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001."
Of course, the title was chosen to create a nice propaganda vehicle to sell it to the public, so the meaning of PATRIOT has largely been lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, thank you for putting it so succinctly. ACTA was badly named. It is not what it pretends to be. This seems to be a common understanding among people who've studied the treaty. Another good article [american.edu] in the American University Washington College of Law series, this one written by Margot E. Kaminski, say that:
The reasons that software professionals and free/open-stuff advocates
Re: (Score:2)
Don't judge a bill by it's name.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting observation. It's an international IP harmonization treaty counterfeiting the appearance of a trade agreement.
The irony is so massive I'm surprised it doesn't cause to Sun to collapse like a type II supernova.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with you both. ACTA is not binding on the U.S.until such a time as 2/3s of the Senate vote to ratify it. While Obama can sign it and act on it as la
Re: (Score:2)
I'll continue agreeing, then. The European Union, for one (or for 25) has called ACTA a treaty, so if the US treats it as non-binding (as it legally should be, at the moment, under US law) and doesn't follow the agreement, or a state undertakes a policy that diverges from the text of ACTA, everyone may end up in an arbitration process, and domestic law has no standing there. So there's a risk to the US in taking this route.
I have a little bit of a problem with people attributing blame for this to the pres
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This president has no concept of the limitations of his power. He make Bush and his signing statements, which were outrages, fond memories.
You can add selective enforcement of immigration and deportation law to your list as well. The law does specify how to prioritize enforce but Obama seems to think he have INS do that. Seems like if violates Equal Protection to me but what do I know?
We also have the EPA essentially legislating environmental standards, so much for simply enforcing and advising the legis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably he wouldn't bring up the procedural objection if he didn't care about the content. A vote in two chambers of congress would give opponents of the treaty (or agreement or whatever you want to call it) at least two more opportunities to oppose it in public. Congress is more responsive to public mood than the executive branch. I think it was an ambassador who signed the treaty in Japan over last weekend. That's an event that much harder to make a stink about than a vote in the legislature.
Treaty vs. Executive agreement (Score:3)
Since George Washington, presidents have been entering the US into international agreements that were not approved by the Senate, i.e., agreements pursuant to the constitutional authority of the president.
The constitutional sources of authority for the President to conclude international agreements include:
(a) The President’s authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs;
(b) The President’s a
Re: (Score:3)
Obama seems to be a Democrat in Name Only these days anyway; he's always just caving in and doing whatever the Republicans want, and calling it "compromise". There's little difference between Obama and Bush in fact, and in some ways Obama has been a lot worse than Bush ever was.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the news, dummy.
Here's a funny site to get you started:
http://americanextremists.thecomicseries.com/ [thecomicseries.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I only insult their intelligence if their post is flamebait, or so moronic that I can't resist. The AC's post above is one of these two, I'm not sure which. (It's hard to tell with these Obama supporters, because they're so delusional; back in 2005 they were all decrying Bush's policies, but now that Obama has adopted them all and made some even worse (like TSA), they support him. I'm sure a good psychologist could enlighten us more about this phenomenon; I think it's called "cognitive dissonance", but I
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know, it might be because while what Obama is doing sucks, what is offered as the *only* alternative by the right is flat-out insane.
There is an alternative, and it's really really strange how no one ever talks about it. It's called "elect a different Democrat". We have an election coming up next year, and while everyone's talking about which Republican will be nominated in the primaries, no one talks about which Democrat will be nominated in the primaries. It's like everyone assumes that there simply
The Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution? Pfft.
We've moved past that a long time ago.
Asset forfeiture, warrantless search and seizure, restrictions on the freedom of the press on the internet...
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. I documented our lack of what were formerly our rights six years ago. [kuro5hin.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The courts have held that you have no freedom of speech when writing in a computer language.
Re: (Score:2)
Its bullshit.
I also don't have freedom of speech to write the harry potter books and distribute them.
His whole post is no only full of logical fallacy, shows a clear inability to understand the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
That point's not. It's referring to software patents, not copyrights. If you come up with an idea for a program independently that's been patented, quite likely given the seeming abandonment of the obviousness exclusion, you're not allowed to write your program without the express permission of the patent holder. Software patents aren't like patenting actual physical inventions, they're more like patenting plot elements in a book.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm surprised you didn't add killing [wikipedia.org] and torturing [wikipedia.org] (under the rules put forward by the UN Human Rights Council and Amnesty International) citizens without charges.
But hey, at least nobody's tried to quarter troops in my home yet.
Re: (Score:2)
What conundrum of a world do you live in?
Re: (Score:2)
yes, instead they come back to find they have no place to live.
Re: (Score:2)
are you sure? they haven't released his school transcripts
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about his law school (Score:3, Informative)
It's about the cushy position given to him for 12 years at University of Chicago Law School as a lecturer for constitutional law. His colleagues at the school didn't find him to be particularly engaged, as he had other priorities at the time, namely his political career.
His connections were gained while doing community organizing work in Chicago. I have to admit, he is extremely smooth. He'd do anything, pretend to believe anything, live a complete lie, just to get ahead.
It's a real issue, because of a DoD privilege (Score:5, Informative)
First, the link to the letter in the article tries to get you to sign up for some file storage service before reading the document. Here's the original from Sen. Wyden's U.S, Senate site. [senate.gov]
The reason this isn't being submitted to the Senate for ratification as a treaty is because of a conflict between the pharmaceutical industry and the Department of Defense. The pharmaceutical industry insists that national governments not be allowed to override intellectual property laws to make low-cost drugs available to their citizens. That's in ACTA. DoD insists that they be allowed to override intellectual property laws when they want to use a technology without paying for patent rights first.
If ACTA were ratified by the Senate, it would be binding on the U.S. Goverment. This would give patent holders rights against the U.S. Government they dont' have now. DoD doesn't want that.
Shit, talk about Sophie's Choice (Score:3)
The people in sales and marketing of prescr
Re:It's a real issue, because of a DoD privilege (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you sure? It sounds more like they just want to preserve the Bayh-Dole Act [keionline.org], meaning if the government helps fund the R&D for a product, they get non-exclusive royalty-free rights to any IP generated from it. I know the DoD has some overreaching powers over IP when it comes to national secrecy or times of war, but I haven't heard of them being able to just use someone's independently-developed patent outright without paying for it (aside from the regular government indemnification from being sued).
Re: (Score:2)
I know the DoD has some overreaching powers over IP when it comes to national secrecy or times of war, but I haven't heard of them being able to just use someone's independently-developed patent outright without paying for it (aside from the regular government indemnification from being sued).
28 USC 1498. See this presentation on IP problems of DoD subcontractors. [ndia.org] It's routine in DoD procurements to get one contractor to develop a technology, then award the production contract to the lowest bidder without paying for the technology. The developer can sue the Government, but that takes years (one case has been going on for 30 years) and the Government wins about 75% of the time. Many companies prefer to keep their technology secret from DoD and not deal with them at all because of this.
DoD IP rights (Score:4, Informative)
As a DoD contractor, I see that all the time. DoD employees are rightfully pissed when contractors develop tech on the government dime, then take the tech a half step further and start calling it proprietary. It's total BS. The DoD always wants the simple right to use the things they paid for without paying again. And in years past, DoD contracts departments have sometimes done a poor job and then been burned by buying something on a low initial bid, being sold a proprietary technology, and then being stuck with ridiculously overpriced maintenance costs and no way to cost-effectively hire someone else to do the work.
I've never seen the DoD just try to directly use a foreign patent for free, although it's not an issue of whether or not they want to--I think it's more functional roles. The DoD is primarily composed of enlisted guys who do the work and generalist officers who lead them. They employ pockets of specialists to keep the generalists out of trouble, and those few specialists usually end up responsible for technical management of programs and contracts so the officers don't need to do day to day management and can focus on strategic items. That way DoD officers don't have to learn how to manage highly technical staffs--which is a very different task from managing soldiers in the field, so this significatanly cuts DoD overhead--and the DoD doesn't have to figure out how to keep paying for a costly technical staff if congress reduces funding since they can just not extend contracts.
The DoD will still be crying for the new features and capabilities provided by new patents, but they generally don't care how it gets done, and consequently, the patent is an issue the contractor can figure out. The DoD just wants 'sharks with frikin lasers attached to their heads.'
And now they buy the documentation too so they can later get competitive bids on upgrading those lasers down the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how. Obama's motives may be complicated, but his duty is not. Not in the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither majority party will allow a candidate to be nominated who wants this at the Presidential level. Occasionally one slips into Congress - like Ron Paul - but neither his own party nor the Democrats like him much there either.
Ron Wyden Lovenest (Score:3)
I'm incredibly impressed with him, and I sure wish *he* would run for president. I'm nauseated at the prospect of choosing between Romney and Obama next year.
Sometimes I even want to do this with pictures of Ron. Secret Love Lair [penny-arcade.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If only Wyden didn't completely disregard the Second Amendment. His support of hate crimes legislation (creating "protected classes") and more extensive cell phone wiretapping are also troubling.
But at least more than others he's a good mix rather than a party-line lackey.
Let me see if I got this right (Score:2)
1) U.S. companies and legislators practically dictate ACTA to cushion the corporate interests of the entertainment industries. ... then it suddenly might not be acceptable to the people who (in practice) started the whole circus?
2) ACTA is presented as an "offer you cannot refuse" to the rest of the world.
3) Eventually, ACTA comes back to the U.S. as a treaty, ready to to be signed
4)
5) ???
6) Confusion!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think Obama has reached GWB's level yet unless you include allowing everything GWB did to persist.
To be clear, I do blame Obama for not undoing GWB/Cheney's dirty work. He pretty much promised he would do that. He hasn't and it seems he will not. But to be as bold as GWB in doing so? I am not so sure Obama even approaches that level of gall.
It will be a very long time before we see another black president. It didn't help anything and let's be frank about this -- he was elected BECAUSE he is bla
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of my big disappointments with him. I was hoping we'd reach such a landmark with a strong, effective president. Instead, well, look at what we got, the weak community-organizer-in-chief. Looking back, if only Ryan's private divorce matters hadn't been aired, allowing Obama to run effectively unopposed for the Senate, Herman Cain could have been the first.
Same with a female president. I would love to have one, but I hope it's not Hillary, or Bachmann or Palin fo
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, I do blame Obama for not undoing GWB/Cheney's dirty work. He pretty much promised he would do that.
Really? I remember him promising to focus more on Afghanistan, and close Guantanamo. He did one, and was out manouvered by republicans on the other. These are the only Bush era items I remember him promising to undo, and neither of them affect our essential rights.
I also remember him supporting the "Patriot" act, and supporting warrantless wiretapping, well before the election. It's always bee
Re: (Score:2)
What we are seeing is the result of the primary republican goal. People like the poster have been spoon fed the same lies and they bought it.
The republican have castrated every attempt Obama makes. Even when he agrees with them, the change their stance. The pub ONLY GOAL is making Obama a one term president. SO they shut everything down a best they can, and then certain media outlets and pundits talk about how it's on only Obama fault, but the whole economy and jobs issue was Obama's fault.
And people like t
Re: (Score:2)
He's kept around half of his campaign promises...if you're generous about what you mean by keeping a promise. And it's largely the wrong half.
You can argue that he was stopped by the Republicans, but if he were serious he could have used his "bully pulpit" to push for what he wanted. He didn't. Largely because what he wanted were things he'd prefer that the public not notice.
You could say that he was guided by public opinion poles...but this is clearly only true when they say what he wants to hear.
The be
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree with you. Even about Nixon.
Re: (Score:2)
You will see Cain in 2012.
Re: (Score:2)
You will see Cain in 2012.
Then there will be Hell to pay.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope not. His campaign is built upon a logical fallacy: The Running a business is the same as running a country.
It isn't. There are two separate species. One case about customer, and is responsible to a few people who hold stock.
The other has a responsibility to all people, regardless of their income or voice.
"And as a successful business leader and CEO, my executive experience in turning around struggling companies is just what this country needs."
No, it is not. Business are dictatorships.
Re: (Score:3)
A business executive is a leader. They understand organization, bureaucrats (yes, business have these types too) and delegation.
A community organizer understands none of this. They understand political connections, special favors, and pandering. And we've seen what those get us.
If running a business is nothing like running a country, then organizing a community is the opposite of running a country.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you're not confusing that story with this?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kkk.asp [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
You had me with you until (Score:2)
That's not very likely to happen whether we replace him with a Republican or a Democrat.
Re:Since when... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but anyone referring to Obama as the "Messiah" or the "One" or the "Chosen" or whatever deserves to be modded to oblivion because it's flamebait. Essentially you're insulting both Obama *and* insinuating that his supporters are fanatical, irrational worshippers, without having the balls to come out and say it. It's a nice little straw man for you to attack without putting any effort or thought into it.
I'll admit that I didn't even read the rest of your OP, because I figured it would be more of the same.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:2)
AH, did you forget about the 2 previous elections?
You know where republicans attack vote counting setter, destroys ballots, and called any one names who dared question what happened?
I am not fanatical, or an irrational worshiper. I use logic and history. I suggest you begin to do the same.
Do you know what cause the enthusiasm for Obama? the complete and utter fuck ups the republicans did. People seem to forget that.
Sorry, I forgot Obama's best qualification (Score:2)
Due to him being black, he was the one best able to get across the message of "I'm not Bush." And then he proceded to be pretty much like Bush in various areas, only even more incompetent.
You mean how Gore tried to steal the election through the classic "Recount until the Democrat wins" strategy, but was rebuffed by the Supreme Court? You mean how the efforts of the networks to stop votes in heavily Republican Western Florida by declaring Gore the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, except you didn't have to listen to anything Jobs said. Obama says you have to buy insurance, better buy insurance or you get fined. But I do see you underlying point, the difference being between a toddler whining "Give me cookies" and a 6'10" thug with a gun saying "Give me your money."
(oh, can't wait to feel the heat on this one)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it was the Republican minority that somehow maneuvered the health care bill into a situation where the individual mandate was the *only* way to pay for it. I'm not sure how else they expected it to work when they took the single payer option off the table.
I'd claim that it was just an unintended consequence, except I'm pretty sure this was *exactly* what was intended. They get to force the issue, then blame Obama for what they did. Brilliant, really, especially considering how many dupes will happily
The difference of Steve Jobs (Score:2)
You don't have to buy his products.
Also, Jobs was actually right at times.
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing Congress can still do is starve the Executive of money.
Re:This President... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, he's not. He's a pawn for his corporatist handlers, just like Bush was.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is the type of politics that effects how you can use technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps because this will "lock in" the current IP laws?
Can a law be modified, created, or stricken that goes against a treaty?