The coming Barack Hussein Obama thugocracy

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

No I'm saying after 9-11 when we had weapons grade Anthrax showing up in the mail, people dying and buildings needing to be decontaminated, it was unacceptable for the UN to allow Saddam to limit access. I hope you are trolling, otherwise you missed the actual total events.

the issue of the anthrax attacks (ultimately shown to be domestic in source), the issue of "people dying" (which I presume you mean 9/11), UN mandates and their lack of access to Iraq, are all completely seperate issues from the campaign of disinformation, of planting irresponsible rumours, of illegally spying on domestic targets done by the bush white house.

attempting to justify illegal acts by linking these items is like saying the vigilante is right in murdering someone. either we operate under the rule of law or we don't.

me, I want the rule of law to prevail. apparently you don't care about legal constraints and those in positions of power who disregard those laws.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the issue of the anthrax attacks (ultimately shown to be domestic in source), the issue of "people dying" (which I presume you mean 9/11), UN mandates and their lack of access to Iraq, are all completely seperate issues from the campaign of disinformation, of planting irresponsible rumours, of illegally spying on domestic targets done by the bush white house.

attempting to justify illegal acts by linking these items is like saying the vigilante is right in murdering someone. either we operate under the rule of law or we don't.

me, I want the rule of law to prevail. apparently you don't care about legal constraints and those in positions of power who disregard those laws.

Maybe it was ultimately found to be domestic, but not then. Peopled died from from that Anthrax.

LOL, yeah, don't let the fact of the UN's inattention to the law or we gave them and Saddam every opportunity to comply with the agreement Saddam had signed to stop military action factor intrude on your justice.

But there's no reasoning with you, since you completely refuse to address
the issue of self defense or trolling the subways with a sock full of quarters and a Saturday night special or cops on the take ignoring your families safety might be different. Your attempt to hold us as evil under the logic of law abiding is like the wife who considers herself virtuous because she only sleeps with other men when her husband is out of town.

You have no answer to why the UN refused to take action on the stipulation that was the main reason for the cease fire: Making certain his weapons program had ended.

You refuse to acknowledge that had the very simple action of enforcement been followed by the UN or Iraq, we wouldn't have invaded. And it was certainly reasonable given the circumstances. Your Bush derangement syndrome is too deep to admit the law justified our position. Those sacred cow sandwiches are impossible to swallow, eh? Disinformation indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cases_of_anthrax

Five people died from that Anthrax. Five. 17 were infected. It has nothing to do with the 9-11 deaths, people were dying from anthrax. We were emptying buildings, it stopped our government from functioning on several occasions. People were scared to open the mail if they had a public profile. It was classic terrorist, use randomness and insecurity to impact as many people as possible. Daschle. The three networks. Leahy.

You ignore there was no higher authority we appeal this in front of, that the bought out security council is an easy and very public fact. You have to theorize Bush knew of or was actually responsible for disseminating the powder or just ignore the events happened so the neat little "lies and disinformation" still works.

How can you not even remember those deaths and infections? Seriously. You have to factor it into the run up to invasion and at least entertain the idea the citizens who died were a possible factor.

There was no logical reason to not enforce the unfettered inspections unless it was bribes. None. We had people dying from Anthrax. We had a country whose leader had previously used it and he had refused to allow inspectors who were supposed to look for that type of material blocked. There was no reason for it to be shrugged off. You can't ignore it and say "either we operate under the rule of law or we don't."

It's against the law to murder. It's also allowed to have that event become legal if it is judged to happen as self defense. Since you are such a stickler for legal:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

"Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force."

"However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances."

Far as I can see, those attempts to get the UN and Saddam to comply fit. And both refused with zero justification.

"An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not required to wait until he has been struck."

While you can make the argument Saddam was no threat, the refusal to allow it to be documented by both parties is at least evidence that we attempted to follow the proper procedure.

Putting us as the big breaker of laws while totally ignoring we should have never been in that predicament, especially with the after the fact proof of chicanery, is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets.

Laws and justice only work with the implied agreement every party obey and enforce it. People go to prison when they accept renumeration to bypass the process and ignore the rules. They are replaced by people who will adhere to the process. That on 17 previous occasions it had been determined Iraq had broken it's agreement and the UN did essentially nothing because of corruption, That just allowing that to continue was just.

It's just as easy to make the argument our actions actually bolstered justice because we simply enforced the agreement while making numerous pleas and leaving numerous opportunities for compliance. Being a nation of laws doesn't just mean following the law, it also means you make an effort to see it's applied equally.

You are unable to justify either the institution charged with enforcement or the party that agreed to the terms refusal. You ignore their injustice because your rhetorical house of cards requires we ignore we should have never needed to beg the UN to enforce it. That it was just to demand compliance. Or that going forward it sets the example you need to follow agreements that cease hostilities or expect them to resume. That invalidating the terms on one side, breaking a contract has no meaning.


Thanks for playing.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Maybe it was ultimately found to be domestic, but not then. Peopled died from from that Anthrax.

LOL, yeah, don't let the fact of the UN's inattention to the law or we gave them and Saddam every opportunity to comply with the agreement Saddam had signed to stop military action factor intrude on your justice.

But there's no reasoning with you, since you completely refuse to address
the issue of self defense or trolling the subways with a sock full of quarters and a Saturday night special or cops on the take ignoring your families safety might be different. Your attempt to hold us as evil under the logic of law abiding is like the wife who considers herself virtuous because she only sleeps with other men when her husband is out of town.

You have no answer to why the UN refused to take action on the stipulation that was the main reason for the cease fire: Making certain his weapons program had ended.

You refuse to acknowledge that had the very simple action of enforcement been followed by the UN or Iraq, we wouldn't have invaded. And it was certainly reasonable given the circumstances. Your Bush derangement syndrome is too deep to admit the law justified our position. Those sacred cow sandwiches are impossible to swallow, eh? Disinformation indeed.

Five people died from that Anthrax. Five. 17 were infected. It has nothing to do with the 9-11 deaths, people were dying from anthrax. We were emptying buildings, it stopped our government from functioning on several occasions. People were scared to open the mail if they had a public profile. It was classic terrorist, use randomness and insecurity to impact as many people as possible. Daschle. The three networks. Leahy.

You ignore there was no higher authority we appeal this in front of, that the bought out security council is an easy and very public fact. You have to theorize Bush knew of or was actually responsible for disseminating the powder or just ignore the events happened so the neat little "lies and disinformation" still works.

How can you not even remember those deaths and infections? Seriously. You have to factor it into the run up to invasion and at least entertain the idea the citizens who died were a possible factor.

There was no logical reason to not enforce the unfettered inspections unless it was bribes. None. We had people dying from Anthrax. We had a country whose leader had previously used it and he had refused to allow inspectors who were supposed to look for that type of material blocked. There was no reason for it to be shrugged off. You can't ignore it and say "either we operate under the rule of law or we don't."

It's against the law to murder. It's also allowed to have that event become legal if it is judged to happen as self defense. Since you are such a stickler for legal:

"Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force."

"However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances."

Far as I can see, those attempts to get the UN and Saddam to comply fit. And both refused with zero justification.

"An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not required to wait until he has been struck."

While you can make the argument Saddam was no threat, the refusal to allow it to be documented by both parties is at least evidence that we attempted to follow the proper procedure.

Putting us as the big breaker of laws while totally ignoring we should have never been in that predicament, especially with the after the fact proof of chicanery, is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets.

Laws and justice only work with the implied agreement every party obey and enforce it. People go to prison when they accept renumeration to bypass the process and ignore the rules. They are replaced by people who will adhere to the process. That on 17 previous occasions it had been determined Iraq had broken it's agreement and the UN did essentially nothing because of corruption, That just allowing that to continue was just.

It's just as easy to make the argument our actions actually bolstered justice because we simply enforced the agreement while making numerous pleas and leaving numerous opportunities for compliance. Being a nation of laws doesn't just mean following the law, it also means you make an effort to see it's applied equally.

You are unable to justify either the institution charged with enforcement or the party that agreed to the terms refusal. You ignore their injustice because your rhetorical house of cards requires we ignore we should have never needed to beg the UN to enforce it. That it was just to demand compliance. Or that going forward it sets the example you need to follow agreements that cease hostilities or expect them to resume. That invalidating the terms on one side, breaking a contract has no meaning.


Thanks for playing.

what a long winded, inane and irrelevant discourse on why it was justifiable for the bush administration to invade iraq.

*yawn*

hey, here's an important point: that's not the issue.

if you want to pontificate endlessly about saddam hussein, his failures and his self induced downfall, go for it. have a good time playing with yourself.

however if you can somehow force yourself to focus on the bush administration manipulating the intelligence services to put forth conclusions that supported their goal in spite of evidence to the contrary, their putting out disinformation about hussein's links to terrorism, their failure to follow the law in respect to domestic spying, then let's hear it.

so far you haven't addressed any of those items. must have just gone right over your head.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what a long winded, inane and irrelevant discourse on why it was justifiable for the bush administration to invade iraq.

*yawn*

hey, here's an important point: that's not the issue.

if you want to pontificate endlessly about saddam hussein, his failures and his self induced downfall, go for it. have a good time playing with yourself.

however if you can somehow force yourself to focus on the bush administration manipulating the intelligence services to put forth conclusions that supported their goal in spite of evidence to the contrary, their putting out disinformation about hussein's links to terrorism, their failure to follow the law in respect to domestic spying, then let's hear it.

so far you haven't addressed any of those items. must have just gone right over your head.

Yeah, right. The initial event that started the process and the UN's refusal to enforce the most important reason we ceased military action doesn't matter when it was shown the reason was the security council was illegally diverting and illegally using the program for individual enrichment.

That there is no defense for it. And when I raise the points you refuse to address them, and it has no bearing when analyzing the situation. Your yawn and personal attacks and name calling merely bolsters your claim that you believe in the rule of law. They had no place in considering the merits of invading. even though without the event it wouldn't have been necessary. Right.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Yeah, right. The initial event that started the process and the UN's refusal to enforce the most important reason we ceased military action doesn't matter when it was shown the reason was the security council was illegally diverting and illegally using the program for individual enrichment.

yep, still trying to explain the justification for the invasion. still not understanding the issue.

That there is no defense for it. And when I raise the points you refuse to address them, and it has no bearing when analyzing the situation. Your yawn and personal attacks and name calling merely bolsters your claim that you believe in the rule of law. They had no place in considering the merits of invading. even though without the event it wouldn't have been necessary. Right.

"personal attacks"??? "name calling"???

when the other side plays the victim card, it's darn clear they have nothing left, they're void of any credible responses.

there is absolutely nothing you have posted which is a good defense of the bush administration actions in manipulating the facts, use of false rumours and the illegal domestic spying they conducted.

in fact, with all the rationale for the invasion that you've offered, it is even more damning the bush administration resorted to their conduct. it shouldn't have been needed.

[DirkFTW]

"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence." Scienter is really hard to prove, Mavdog. People make mistakes. Bush can't be both the dumbest, bumbling douchebag and the most brilliant evil mind since Hitler.

[aquaadverse]

"personal attacks"??? "name calling"???

when the other side plays the victim card, it's darn clear they have nothing left, they're void of any credible responses.

I don't know what you call saying I lack a moral or ethical compass, I take it personally. It wasn 't a victim card, it was a comment. There was no reason for it, it added nothing to the discussion. you made the remark to my posting that If Saddam and the UN simply followed the rules that each Party agreed to, or If 41 had won a second term, it would have made the whole exercise unnecessary. It is a fact, and I pointed out your criticism about caring about the rule of law had a big blind spot. They both broke a law, the reasons was corruption to circumvent the agreement. Considering the circumstances, he was justified to demand compliance.

You want to ignore that and rant, fine. I look at it that Bush really wanted the UN to step up. He didn't want to go without the UN approval. You can go with the cherry picking intelligence and illegal wire taps. and all the rest if you want, You never answered my original points, didn't even know people died and were infected from the Anthrax. Saying it's irrelevant is exactly that. I'm not sure how you can state you are for the rule of law and leave my original points unanswered.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence." Scienter is really hard to prove, Mavdog. People make mistakes. Bush can't be both the dumbest, bumbling douchebag and the most brilliant evil mind since Hitler.

thankfully he is neither.

my view of george the younger is he just wasn't up to the task at hand, and he allowed the underlings to make too many poor decisions. the worst of that bunch was cheney, and imho in retrospect the bush term was doomed when he made the unfortunate decision to select cheney as his veep.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

I don't know what you call saying I lack a moral or ethical compass, I take it personally. It wasn 't a victim card, it was a comment. There was no reason for it, it added nothing to the discussion. you made the remark to my posting that If Saddam and the UN simply followed the rules that each Party agreed to, or If 41 had won a second term, it would have made the whole exercise unnecessary. It is a fact, and I pointed out your criticism about caring about the rule of law had a big blind spot. They both broke a law, the reasons was corruption to circumvent the agreement. Considering the circumstances, he was justified to demand compliance.

You want to ignore that and rant, fine. I look at it that Bush really wanted the UN to step up. He didn't want to go without the UN approval. You can go with the cherry picking intelligence and illegal wire taps. and all the rest if you want, You never answered my original points, didn't even know people died and were infected from the Anthrax. Saying it's irrelevant is exactly that. I'm not sure how you can state you are for the rule of law and leave my original points unanswered.

you seem to confuse conjecture with "fact".

the issues you bring up, the terrorist attacks, the anthrax attacks, hussein circumventing the un mandates on trade, the un watchdogs profiteering on those madates....thay have no, repeat NO bearing on the decision of the bush administration to violate american laws on domestic spying, or their conduct in disseminating disinformation and false rumours in order to provide justification for their acts.

that you continue to repeat the guilt of others as somehow granting a pass to the bush administration for their transgressions is why you lack a compass. not once have you attempted to show that the bush administration is not guilty (a good choice as they are not defensible), you merely say "but the other guys were guilty" as if this excuses the bush administration of their guilt.

it doesn't.

[aquaadverse]

the issues you bring up, the terrorist attacks, the anthrax attacks, hussein circumventing the un mandates on trade, the un watchdogs profiteering on those madates....thay have no, repeat NO bearing on the decision of the bush administration to violate american laws on domestic spying, or their conduct in disseminating disinformation and false rumours in order to provide justification for their acts.

that you continue to repeat the guilt of others as somehow granting a pass to the bush administration for their transgressions is why you lack a compass. not once have you attempted to show that the bush administration is not guilty (a good choice as they are not defensible), you merely say "but the other guys were guilty" as if this excuses the bush administration of their guilt.

it doesn't.

Aside from the fact that if the first had never existed, the second wouldn't have taken place, you're correct. I'm not giving him a bye. But your continual ignoring it It was had no bearing is wrong.. It was causal. The UN had all the same facts. They were going to still do nothing.You're the one who is making judgments in a vacuum.

i never said it absolved him. He was trying to get as much cover as possible. And your accusations are hardly proven. Would you feel better if martial law had been declared?

It is a fact the UN had no basis to refuse to take steps to force compliance. The evidence is clear of why they didn't do it. If they had the other events would have happened. That was my statement. It has nothing to do with the rest of your tangents of absolving Bush. Nothing he was going to say or do was ever going to get the UN to budge.

There was no end of high ranking members of Congress and leaders of other nations publicly stating that they believed he was still pursuing a weapons program. Saddam himself stated he was cultivating the appearance to keep his head off the wall of one of those palaces.

All I'm saying is it shouldn't have reached that point. I'm saying he was pretty much forced to act because a long line of people refused to do the job and we were in that situation because of it. Bush didn't put us there.

We got to have the fun of 9-11 because of an eight year pattern of escalating acts of destruction were treated as law enforcement issues. Bin Ladden really believed 9-11 would swell his ranks and we might lob a few missiles and only concern ourselves with the actual perps. Saddam had little concern because he felt we would do anything to avoid boots on the ground. We didn't have any more successful attacks primarily because of DHS, our borders are still wide open and there is little we could do to stop it.
It hasn't happened because the cost was suddenly too high. Madrid got some pre-election bombs that reportedly accomplished exactly what it was designed to do and the actions we took and the the way we reacted sent a strong message. You might think it was just a couple of steps from our way of life caving in, find an oldster and ask about rationing or censored mail. It was about changing expectations and while I'm not real happy about some of the actions, all I was trying to point out we should have never been in the situation. How could we stand by and just shrug? All my examples have everything to do with it. I don't think we would have done much if they didn't exist.

[dude1394]

Uh oh...this guy (Inspector General) better watch his back.

STIMULUS! Gov’t watchdog questions airport stimulus projects. “The Obama administration used economic stimulus money to pay for 50 airport projects that didn’t meet the grant criteria and approved projects at four airports with a history of mismanaging federal grants, a government watchdog said Monday. Transportation Department Inspector General Calvin Scovel said he plans to examine the Federal Aviation Administration’s process for selecting programs for the $1.1 billion in grant money.”
Obviously, the solution is to fire the Inspector-General.

[dude1394]

The thugocracy's playbook. I may have to pick up a copy of Alinsky's Guide to Community Organizers just to take a look.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ome_97918.html

George W. Bush-by-Proxy Syndrome

By Andrew Breitbart
There is an extensive body of writing from both sides of the political aisle that has analyzed the extraordinary depths of hatred leveled at former President George W. Bush.


His birth into a wealthy and politically connected family is where a lot of the animus starts. His rejection of his Connecticut roots and adoption of a rugged Texan persona naturally riled his birth-constituency. His disjointed speaking style also alienated many others - especially those who covered him in the Northeastern media. Naturally, some of his initiatives were controversial. His allies say he didn't do enough.



But all presidents make mistakes, pursue unpopular ideas, possess off-putting personality traits and don't do enough to appeal to their core supporters. Something far more insidious was at work in the hatred of our most recent former president.


Now that Mr. Bush is quietly going about his retirement, this strain of rage - the GWB43 virus - has spread like wildfire, finding unsuspecting targets, each granting us greater perspective into what not long ago seemed like a mysterious phenomenon isolated only on our 43rd president.


The first person to catch the virus was Sarah Palin, whose family also was infected, including, unforgivably, her children.
Then it was Joe the Plumber, for asking a question.
Next were the Mormons.
Then it was Rush Limbaugh - who hit back.
Next, tax-day "tea party" attendees were "tea bagged."
Then there was a beauty contestant.
And a Cambridge cop, too.
And now we have town-hall "mobs."
Smile ... you've been "community organized."


When put on the media stage, these individuals and groups have been isolated for destruction for standing in the way of a resurgent modern progressive movement and for challenging its charismatic once-in-a-lifetime standard-bearer, Barack Obama.


This is their time, we've been told. And no one is going to stand in the way.


The origins of manufactured "politics of personal destruction" is Saul Alinsky, the mentor of a young Hillary Rodham, who wrote her 92-page Wellesley College senior thesis on the late Chicago-based "progressive" street agitator titled, "There Is Only the Fight."


Mr. Obama and his Fighting Illini, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, have perfected Mr. Alinsky's

techniques as laid out in his guidebook to political warfare, "Rules for Radicals." In plain language, we see how normal, decent and even private citizens become nationally vilified symbols overnight - all in the pursuit of progressive political victory.


"Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"


With the complicity of the mainstream media and abetted by George Soros' money and netroots nation, Mr. Bush never stood a chance.


But the more the virus spreads, the more we study it and, perhaps, find the cure. The repetitive use of the same technique against anyone who would dare stand up and oppose the progressive movement and especially its leader has exposed the game and rendered its tactics less effective.


In fact, one could make the argument that the Republican Party, usually slow on the uptake, has finally figured it out. There are no major Republican targets out there opposing Mr. Obama and his aggressive agenda. The conservative movement appears leaderless, but perhaps for the best.


Maybe that is the strategy: Standing back and letting the Obama machine flail in its pursuit of its next victim.


A grass-roots movement of average Americans has stood up, making it extremely difficult to isolate and demonize an individual.


Mr. Alinsky noted in "Rule 12" that it is difficult to go after "institutions." And attacking "tea baggers" and "mobs" has only created more resistance and drawn attention to the left's limited playbook. Even Americans expressing their constitutionally protected right to free speech are open game.


Now that many people are Googling the Alinsky rule book and catching up with the way Chicago thugs play their political games, Mr. Obama and the Fighting Illini are going to be forced to create new rules - or double down on the old ones.


Worse yet, as his approval ratings descend rapidly - Rasmussen has him at 47 percent, the lowest of his presidency - angry citizens may be turning the tables on him, using Mr. Alinsky against him.


They won't have to "freeze" and "personalize" him either. He's got 3 1/2 years left with the klieg lights focused on him. And if Mr. Obama can't get the economy rolling and continues to demonize everyday folks for his failures, he will be further isolated from sympathy and even ridiculed.


Yes, it's cruel - and effective.


Ask Mr. Bush, the magnanimous guy who gave the new president a heartfelt hug the day he took office. He knows.


Boy, I wish I could see his famous smirk right about now. I always loved how much they hated that.

[Mavdog]

gee, reading breitbart's column one would think that these poor people on the right were being picked on, and that they never, NEVER went after an opponent.

it's almost enough to make you cry about their plight...sniff, sniff.

but nothing could be further from the truth, and breitbart does not speak the truth; it is first conjured persection, and second it forgets that politics is a messy and tough battle.

[dude1394]

Who am I to believe. Mavie or Saul Alinsky and the community organizer? A quandry.

[Mavdog]

I'm not contradicting saul alinsky, hillary clinton or "the community organizer".

is "Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule" not practiced by the right?

absolutely it is....has been, and continues to be done today.

[dude1394]

Dangit...Barry shut down the tattle-tale line. How can I continue flag myself!!

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

flag@whitehouse.gov

Technical details of permanent failure:

[dude1394]

You too can be a felon!

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/74102.html

WASHINGTON — If you're planning a garage sale or organizing a church bazaar, you'd best beware: You could be breaking a new federal law. As part of a campaign called Resale Roundup, the federal government is cracking down on the secondhand sales of dangerous and defective products.



The initiative, which targets toys and other products for children, enforces a new provision that makes it a crime to resell anything that's been recalled by its manufacturer.


"Those who resell recalled children's products are not only breaking the law, they are putting children's lives at risk," said Inez Tenenbaum, the recently confirmed chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

[Mavdog]

...and you believe that recalled, unsafe products shouldn't be pulled from use?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

...and you believe that recalled, unsafe products shouldn't be pulled from use?

But lead paint puts hair on your chest!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

...and you believe that recalled, unsafe products shouldn't be pulled from use?

And you believe that granny's selling their kids toys at a yard sale should be jailed as a felon?

[dude1394]

First they'll arrest your for selling your parents toys then they'll spam you. I'm not sure which is worse.

The White House hired a private communications company based in Minnesota to distribute mass e-mails, helping to shed light on how some recipients received e-mails in support of President Obama's health care plan without signing up for them, FOX News has learned.


The company, Govdelivery, describes itself as the world's leading provider of government-to-citizen communication solutions and says its e-mail service provides a fully-automated on-demand public communication system.


It is still unknown how much taxpayer money the White House provides to Govdelivery for its services.
Click here to view Govdelivery's Web site.


The revelation comes after the White House acknowledged this week that people were receiving unsolicited e-mails from the administration about health care reform and suggested the problem was with third-party groups that placed the recipients' names on the distribution list.

Let me paraphrase barry..."the problem is third-party groups that placed the recipients names on the distribution list that you the taxpayer paid to do so."

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

And you believe that granny's selling their kids toys at a yard sale should be jailed as a felon?

a "felon"? well, the penalties are for the most pqrt civil, and knowledge of the product being on the cpsc list is a criteria. to be subject to criminal prosecution one must knowingly distribute prohibited items.

so no, granny will not be "jailed as a felon".

there are some interesting items in the article that somehow you missed including in your post...

Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the agency, said it wouldn't be dispatching bureaucratic storm troopers into private homes to see whether people were selling recalled products from their garages, yards or churches.

"We're not looking to come across as being heavy-handed," he said. "We want to make sure that everybody knows what the rules of engagement are to help spur greater compliance, so that enforcement becomes less of an issue. But we're still going to enforce."

whew! apparently we don't have to worry about any "thugs" swooping down on your garage sale and wisking you off to the jail.

from the link at the bottom of the page:

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) today announced its Top Ten list of recalled children’s products as part of the agency’s “Resale Round-up” campaign. CPSC’s goal is to protect consumers by getting dangerous recalled products out of resale stores and off the Internet. Re-selling recalled products is a violation of federal law.

Before re-selling products, CPSC encourages re-sellers to check its Web site, www.cpsc.gov, to determine if the product has been recalled.

“Those who re-sell recalled children’s products are not only breaking the law, they are putting children’s lives at risk,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. “Resale stores should make safety their business and check for recalled products and hazards to children.”

from the article:

The Resale Roundup is being enforced under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law last year.

if you're truly outraged, perhaps you should start a new thread titled "the george w. bush thugocracy" and put this article in it.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Underdog

But lead paint puts hair on your chest!

yeah, if it's good enough for the chinese to poison their kids with, it's good enough for us too!

and really, is it that bad for infants to be put into those cribs where they'll possibly strangle themselves? or eat those small magnets that get caught in their throat, suffocating them?

I mean free enterprise means free enterprise, right?

[dude1394]

Hang in their Hondurans...I'm sorry that the US is subjecting you to this cluster also.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Obama On Verge of Victory In Honduras

It's hard to know if the situation in Honduras is as dire as reports indicate. Apparently the Obama administration is on the verge of winning in Honduras by forcing the constitutional authorities -- the legislature, the courts, the interim government -- to allow back into power the Hugo Chavez wannabe and puppet, Manuel Zelaya.

This from the NY Times, on the pressures which have resulted in a proposal which would return Zelaya to power:

Stung by the loss of their American visas and concerned about Honduras’s increasing international isolation, the country’s leading businessmen have put forward their own plan to resolve the political crisis here....
The United States has stepped up sanctions in stages in an effort to press the de facto government of Roberto Micheletti to negotiate with Mr. Zelaya. After initially suspending military aid and then some economic aid, the United States said in early September that it would revoke visas to members of the de facto government and their supporters.

As I have said before, I hope Obama fails in Honduras with his disreputable, dishonest, and disingenuous policy. If only Obama were one-tenth as tough with our enemies as he is with our friends.

But maybe I have it backwards, because maybe those most Americans consider our enemies -- like Chavez -- are actually viewed by Obama as our friends. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "friend" is.

Please hang on Honduras. It's not just about you anymore.

[dude1394]

They are nothing if not consistent in some things.

Update: DeMint GROUNDED by Senator John Kerry and President Obama. . .

DeMint Statement on Kerry & Obama Administration Blocking Fact-Finding Trip to Honduras WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, made the following statement after Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and President Obama's State Department blocked Senator DeMint's planned fact-finding trip to Honduras at the last minute.
"These bullying tactics by the Obama administration and Senator Kerry must stop, and we must be allowed to get to the truth in Honduras. Not a single U.S. Senator has traveled to Honduras to learn the facts on the ground. And the Obama administration won't allow Honduran officials or even businessmen to come to the U.S., either. While this administration has failed to act decisively in Afghanistan, it is has no problem cracking down on a democratic ally and one of the poorest nations in Latin America."
"Meanwhile, a thorough report from the Congressional Research Service directly contradicts President Obama's snap decision about the legality of then-President Zelaya's removal from office in June. Now, President Obama and Democrats' blind support for this would-be dictator and friend of Hugo Chavez will prevent members of Congress from learning the truth first hand."

[mcsluggo]

I would ask if you read the reports cited, but it would be a rhetorical question, since you just cut and pasted opinions from somebody ELSE who didn't read the reports that THEY cited, but let me just point out one small fact here, again.

Basically all of the governments of the entire western Hemisphere are united in this nefarious Obama plot to steal the souls of the Honduran voters. Including the Uribe administration in Colombia, long noted as Hugo Chavez lickspittles, no doubt.

Does that fact give you ANY pause to actually put some of your OWN critical thought into the matter? Any?

--for completeness, I most note that this vast anti-Honduran conspiracy does NOT include Panama. So it is not actually unanimous.

[dude1394]

I've read plenty about what has been going on in Honduras. And from what I have read the US would be proud to have done the same thing. Followed the constitution, sent it to the courts and followed their directive. I find it difficult to get on the side of Chavez on this or many other matters.

This is an internal Honduran matter which was handled by Hondurans per their constitution. They are rightly telling the rest of the world to f-off.

[dude1394]

Excellent...way to go Mitch..Piss-off kerry.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/200...ntervenes.html

ABC News' Viviana Hurtado reports: Senator Jim DeMint’s trip to Honduras, which was blocked by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair John Kerry (D-MA), is back on,
A senior DeMint staffer tells ABC News, but only after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) became involved. The Kentucky lawmaker used his leadership position to authorize DeMint’s trip through the Department of Defense, and not the State Department, which is customary for Senate overseas travel.

DeMint who supports the de facto government, accuses the Democrats of “playing politics.” In a statement, the South Carolina Republican says, “These bullying tactics by the Obama administration and Senator Kerry must stop, and we must be allowed to get to the truth in Honduras. Not a single U.S. Senator has traveled to Honduras to learn the facts on the ground. And the Obama administration won't allow Honduran officials or even businessmen to come to the U.S., either. While this administration has failed to act decisively in Afghanistan, it is has no problem cracking down on a democratic ally and one of the poorest nations in Latin America."

Senators Kerry and DeMint are most recently at odds over the nomination of Arturo Valenzuela to be the next Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere affairs and Tom Shannon, the current Assistant Secretary and nominee to be Ambassador to Brazil. In the case of Valenzuela, DeMint was not pleased with what he interpreted as Valenzuela’s lack of knowledge about the Honduran crisis that led to the June ouster of President Manuel Zelaya, who the Obama Administration backs.

Valenzuela, who served the Clinton Administration and has taught politics at Duke and Georgetown universities, is considered an authority in Latin American politics.

[dude1394]

Our inexperienced community organizer continues his thugocracy ways.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...f-walpin-gate/

EDITORIAL: Return of Walpin-gate




THE WASHINGTON TIMES
When last we left Gerald Walpin, the unfairly fired inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, he had filed a lawsuit on July 17 protesting his dismissal. He submitted technical amendments to his complaint on July 24, and the government was supposed to respond within 60 days. Seventy-five days later, the government still is stonewalling.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Government lawyers Tony West, Channing Phillips, Susan Rudy and Kathryn Wyer filed for an extension until Oct. 26, explaining that they were only "recently assigned this case." It's odd, though, that when it suits the White House's political needs, it finds grounds to fire Mr. Walpin immediately, without proper notice, but when it comes to responding to his complaint, it can't manage to move fast enough to meet court rules that are entirely reasonable.
Mr. Walpin was fired shortly after releasing two reports highly critical of close allies of the White House. He was fired without any independent White House investigation of the lame claims against him. Those claims were, first, that he was "disoriented" at a single meeting, and second, that he had the temerity to write an unapproved letter to the editor of a California newspaper to defend, entirely accurately, his investigation of a political ally of President Obama. As fireable offenses go, especially for a quasi-independent official such as an inspector general, his supposed transgressions rank in importance somewhere between piddling and nonexistent.
More important, they rank far below the importance of the transgressions on which Mr. Walpin was blowing the whistle. For instance, he had unearthed major misuse of funds by AmeriCorps grantee Kevin Johnson, a former professional basketball star and Obama friend who is now mayor of Sacramento. Giving further credence to Mr. Walpin's work, the FBI since has opened an investigation into the Johnson case.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and longtime supporter of government whistleblowers, has been so angered at the refusal of the White House and the Corporation for National and Community Service board to turn over documents related to the strange firing of Mr. Walpin that he put an official hold on the nomination of corporation board chairman Alan D. Solomont to be ambassador to Spain. The hold is entirely justified. The White House's defenestration of an honest IG, without adequate explanation, is a scandal.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Our inexperienced community organizer continues his thugocracy ways.

wow, beating a dead horse in hopes that there is something, anything, to use against obama.

this is old news that has been fully examined and the dismissal's been validated.

bettter luck in your next pursuit of a smoking gun....

[dude1394]

Yea...no need to you know...actually provide the evidence they claim exists for why he was illegally fired... Nothing to see here, move on.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yea...no need to you know...actually provide the evidence they claim exists for why he was illegally fired... Nothing to see here, move on.

sure there's need to know, and in fact if you care to look you can find out all you want. there's been a fia request which brought out all the letters, notes etc.

walpin abused his office, interfered with a us attorney and the us attorney's investigation, and did other questionable acts.

but if you want to beat the dead horse, go for it. remember tho dead horses can't take you anywhere.

[dude1394]

Yup..nothing to see here, move on, just move on.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yup..nothing to see here, move on, just move on.

it's interesting that rather than look for more knowledge of the issue, which is out there and available, you just act like that information doesn't exist and repeat the mantra of there being a wrong committed.

there wasn't, and the facts validate it.

[dude1394]

What is interesting is that you can hear that the guvment is still in court over this as well as congressmen being stonewalled about information and you still think there is nothing there. To rethink it, it is not interesting, it's typical.

Nothing here, move on, get over it. If the facts validate it why does the guvment need more time to prepare for hearings and why isn't the administration forthcoming with the information being requested by the senator.

[Mavdog]

the "guvment" is in court because walpin is suing. he is claiming unfair termination, he wants his $ (the claim is for punitive damages).

there was a freedon of information request filled, so all the notes/files have been provided, it isn't a very positive picture for walpin.

go read the information. walpin got himself involved in a us atty investigation, failed to heed the instructions of the us atty, was not coherent in the meetings, and was fired not for his attempts to investigate kevin johnson but because he was out of control and doing a poor job.

educate yourself and don't just be a mouthpiece.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

educate yourself and don't just be a mouthpiece.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and longtime supporter of government whistleblowers, has been so angered at the refusal of the White House and the Corporation for National and Community Service board to turn over documents related to the strange firing of Mr. Walpin that he put an official hold on the nomination of corporation board chairman Alan D. Solomont to be ambassador to Spain.

Black..meet kettle. Nothing to see here, move on.

[Mavdog]

well, if grassley is "angered" there must be a problem....he would never use it for his own political purposes....

maybe grasley should just read the wash post, they have the documents posted

[dude1394]

Demint back from a fact-finding trip to honduras which Barry and the Dems tried to stop. Most transparent white house in history continues to well...hide stuff.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...462353766.html

[quote]
Indeed, the desire to move beyond the Zelaya era was almost universal in our meetings. Almost.
In a day packed with meetings, we met only one person in Honduras who opposed Mr. Zelaya's ouster, who wishes his return, and who mystifyingly rejects the legitimacy of the November elections: U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens.
When I asked Ambassador Llorens why the U.S. government insists on labeling what appears to the entire country to be the constitutional removal of Mr. Zelaya a "coup," he urged me to read the legal opinion drafted by the State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh. As it happens, I have asked to see Mr. Koh's report before and since my trip, but all requests to publicly disclose it have been denied.
On the other hand, the only thorough examination of the facts to date—conducted by a senior analyst at the Law Library of Congress—confirms the legality and constitutionality of Mr. Zelaya's ouster. (It's on the Internet here .)
Unlike the Obama administration's snap decision after June 28, the Law Library report is grounded in the facts of the case and the intricacies of Honduran constitutional law. So persuasive is the report that after its release, the New Republic's James Kirchick concluded in an Oct. 3 article that President Obama's hastily decided Honduras policy is now "a mistake in search of a rationale."[/qutoe]

[Mavdog]

yeah, these guys in charge in honduras are just trying for amore open, democratic society....by clamping down on a feee press? odd to say the least, and also revealing.
btw did anyone ever find a honduran law that allows for a honduran citizen to be deported without a trial? thought not.
-------------------------------------------------------------
New media measures take effect in Honduras
By FREDDY CUEVAS (AP) – 1 day ago

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Honduras' interim leaders put in place new rules Saturday that threaten broadasters with closure for airing reports that "attack national security," further restricting media freedom following the closure of two opposition stations.

The latest decree is sure to anger supporters of ousted President Manuel Zelaya and appears to be a challenge to the Organization of American States and a team of regional diplomats who were in the country Thursday to push for a resolution of the crisis.

A statement released by the OAS delegation urged the coup-installed government to, among other things, allow the resumption of operations at the two broadcasters, which backed Zelaya's return to office.

Under the decree imposed by the government of interim President Roberto Micheletti, "the frequencies of radio or television stations may be canceled if they transmit messages that incite national hate and the destruction of public property."

Officials can monitor and control broadcast messages that "attack national security," according to the decree.

It was adopted by the Interior Ministry and will be enforced by the National Telecommunications Commission, interim Information Minister Rene Zepeda told The Associated Press.

Micheletti was sworn in Honduras' interim president following a June 28 coup that ousted Zelaya and sent him into exile. After Zelaya suddenly reappeared in Honduras and took refuge in the Brazilian Embassy on Sept. 21, street protests prompted the Micheletti government to limit freedom of expression, association and movement, and to shut down two pro-Zelaya broadcasters.

The restriction on civil liberties has been lifted, but Channel 36 and Radio Globo are still off the air. Micheletti said they would remain shut down until their owners "come to the courts to recover their right to be on the air."

"We thought that when the (civil liberties) decree was revoked, the equipment would be returned, but that has not happened," said Yesenia Herculano, an activist with Honduras' Committee for Free Expression, earlier this week. "There has been no progress."

Talks on resolving the bitter divide over Zelaya's ousters produced some signs of progress before breaking off for the weekend.

On Friday, police fired tear gas and a water cannon at about 200 pro-Zelaya protesters who demonstrated outside the hotel where negotiations were taking place. There were no arrests and apparently no major injuries, though many people rubbed their eyes or had tears streaming from their eyes because of the acrid smoke.

The international community has been pressuring the Micheletti government to allow Zelaya's return before the Nov. 29 presidential election that was scheduled before the coup. Zelaya was toppled after he pressed ahead with plans for a referendum on changing the constitution despite a Supreme Court order ruling the vote illegal.

The U.S. and other nations have suspended foreign aid and imposed diplomatic isolation on the interim administration.