Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

This is getting old...

The man President Obama appointed to be his chief technology geek is on leave after his former office in the D.C. government was raided by the FBI yesterday...

Vivek Kundra has not been directly tied to the alleged crimes involved in the raid, but he has taken a leave of absence from the Obama administration until further notice...

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=596&sid=1622618

Really is pathetic.

Obama's pick for Natl. Intelligence Council chairman, Charles Freeman, that I just learned about last week, had so many skunks hidden in his closet, it was a farce. I was going to start a thread on him at the beginning of the week...but there's just soooo much crap going on to write about, I never got the time...then, BANG...he withdraws and "blames" the Jewish community for "unfairly" pressuring Congress and the Admin to block his appointment.
If you read the bio on this guy...he's the LAST person who should have any policy control over intelligence infrastructure. His nomination was almost a joke...a test to see if anyone cared. Hell, they could have nominated Hu and it might have been a safer selection as Hu doesn't have the intelligence experience Freeman has.

It's almost if the CAP list of potential nominees was prepared knowing these people were the antithesis of selection criteria. I've never considered myself a protectionist, but with the people Obama is selecting to run out country, I can see a wellspring of public sentiment moving towards protectionism.

Both you guys need to stop the hate. Regardless of what the issue is with this Obama appointee, the administration will not whitewash it, try to cover it up or defend it to the point of nausea, as would the previous.

Jesus, guys. Talk about shit getting old.



Yawn.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Both you guys need to stop the hate. Regardless of what the issue is with this Obama appointee, the administration will not whitewash it, try to cover it up or defend it to the point of nausea, as would the previous.

Jesus, guys. Talk about shit getting old.



Yawn.

You mean like the lib's hating every move Bush, or any conk has made?


Fair play boys, fair play.

clenz wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Both you guys need to stop the hate. Regardless of what the issue is with this Obama appointee, the administration will not whitewash it, try to cover it up or defend it to the point of nausea, as would the previous.

Jesus, guys. Talk about shit getting old.



Yawn.

You mean like the lib's hating every move Bush, or any conk has made?


Fair play boys, fair play.

Hate to agree, but I am obliged to.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Both you guys need to stop the hate. Regardless of what the issue is with this Obama appointee, the administration will not whitewash it, try to cover it up or defend it to the point of nausea, as would the previous.

Jesus, guys. Talk about shit getting old.



Yawn.

Reform the Political Appointee Process: FEMA Director Michael Brown was not qualified to head the agency, and the result was a disaster for the people of the Gulf Coast. But in an Obama-Biden administration, every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agency's mission.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

Tell ya what, Cappy...when they practice what they preach, I'll give them credit...

When they don't, I'll point it out too...

Fair enough?????

Hey, you fvckers, Cap'n Cat has never, ever had a derogatory thing to say about any Republicans, so I don't know where in the fvck you get off pointing a gnarled, arthritic Conk finger at me.




Here's my point, Hoagenheimer. You serve no good purpose getting on the Prez like you guys do. Bush demonstrated failure over and aver and over and over again and had plain-ass criminals working with him in every corner. He earned our spite.

If you're going to jump Obama, do it if he really shits the bed, why now? It's nothing but fashion to Conks to shit on the new president. Bandwagoning, bitter-ass election loser cocksuckers.

Go die, all of you.



Have a sunshiney super duper day!!!

Everything is cool, Cappy...

Nothing but Obama Love from now on...

Col Hogan wrote:

Everything is cool, Cappy...

Nothing but Obama Love from now on...

Now that's more like it, Hoagie.

Fine

Expected an avalanche of WTF's for my "never, ever...derogatory about Republicans" thingy. Losing my touch.

travelinman67 wrote:Really is pathetic.

Obama's pick for Natl. Intelligence Council chairman, Charles Freeman, that I just learned about last week, had so many skunks hidden in his closet, it was a farce. I was going to start a thread on him at the beginning of the week...but there's just soooo much crap going on to write about, I never got the time...then, BANG...he withdraws and "blames" the Jewish community for "unfairly" pressuring Congress and the Admin to block his appointment.
If you read the bio on this guy...he's the LAST person who should have any policy control over intelligence infrastructure. His nomination was almost a joke...a test to see if anyone cared. Hell, they could have nominated Hu and it might have been a safer selection as Hu doesn't have the intelligence experience Freeman has.

It's almost if the CAP list of potential nominees was prepared knowing these people were the antithesis of selection criteria. I've never considered myself a protectionist, but with the people Obama is selecting to run out country, I can see a wellspring of public sentiment moving towards protectionism.

I think it's good that the prez is letting the process take it's course and the chips fall where they may, unlike a certain previous President of the Fukups Hall of Fame. A most refreshing change that should keep dwarves like Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Meiers out of positions of public trust.

Cap'n Cat wrote: Here's my point, Hoagenheimer. You serve no good purpose getting on the Prez like you guys do. Bush demonstrated failure over and aver and over and over again and had plain-ass criminals working with him in every corner. He earned our spite.

So has Obama, and he hasn't even been President 100 days.

Cap'n Cat wrote:If you're going to jump Obama, do it if he really shits the bed, why now? It's nothing but fashion to Conks to shit on the new president. Bandwagoning, bitter-ass election loser cocksuckers.

Here Cap, just two days ago...hyprocrisy personified...from my America's Tea Party Post yesterday...

Had Bush done this exact same thing, Congress, with it's propoganda arm MSM would have surrounded the White House with canons and declared the President mentally infirm and emotionally unfit to serve.

Yet Obama does this and loonylibs like yourself shrug your shoulders and attack the critics...

If you can, deep down in the corners of your mind, the areas you actually used a little when you were in college, search hard for a sign of rational and logic, and if you find it, you'll understand why conservative like myself have no patience or respect for dishonest liberal apologists.

How is it that you haven't cried out about Obama's use of Signing Statements yesterday to "nullify" portions of the Omnibus bill, just a few days after he publicly denounces Signing Statements, orders a review of Bush's use of signing statements, and orders a blanket rescission of all of Bush's Signing Statements?

Here's the March 9th statement by Obama...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... tatements/
Obama reins in signing statements

Spoiler: show

Rebuking his predecessor for the second time yesterday, President Obama declared that he will not use signing statements to disregard parts of laws because he disagrees on policy grounds, but only when he strongly believes provisions are unconstitutional.

In a presidential memo, Obama also ordered his top executive branch officials to seek advice from Attorney General Eric Holder about whether to enforce the hundreds of statements proffered by President George W. Bush. Critics contend Bush used such statements to expand his power, particularly on national security, by ignoring the intent or certain provisions of bills properly passed by Congress.

"There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements," wrote Obama, who also overturned Bush's restrictions yesterday on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

"I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities," the president pledged.

Obama also promised to "take appropriate and timely steps, whenever practicable" to let Congress know of his constitutional concerns about bills before they pass. He also said he would clearly lay out his constitutional objection in any signing statements he does issue; Bush was criticized for issuing signing statements with vague reasons, often asserting his powers as commander in chief.

A series of stories in the Globe in 2006 pointed out that Bush - often with little if any public notice - issued signing statements far more often than other presidents and used them to disobey more than 750 bills approved by Congress.

They emerged as an issue after he used such statements to suggest he could bypass a law on harsh interrogations of terrorism detainees and a law requiring the FBI to tell Congress how it was using expanded police powers under the Patriot Act.

Bush issued them on a wide range of issues including affirmative action, immigration, whistle-blower protections, and safeguards against political interference in scientific research. The statements are official documents, recorded in the Federal Register, in which the president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow. (The Globe stories won a 2007 Pulitzer Prize, journalism's highest honor, for Charlie Savage. Now with The New York Times, Savage first reported Obama's memo on the newspaper's website yesterday.)

During the presidential campaign, Obama blasted Bush for how he used signing statements but reserved the right to issue them himself, in a more restrained way. Republican presidential John McCain said he would not use them at all.

And his usage of them yesterday to nullify portions of the Omnibus Bill...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/us/po ... .html?_r=1
Obama Says He Can Ignore Some Parts of Spending Bill

Spoiler: show

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: March 11, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday issued his first signing statement, reserving a right to bypass dozens of provisions in a $410 billion government spending bill even as he signed it into law.

In the statement — directions to executive-branch officials about how to carry out the legislation — Mr. Obama instructed them to view most of the disputed provisions as merely advisory and nonbinding, saying they were unconstitutional intrusions on his own powers.

Mr. Obama’s instructions followed by two days his order to government officials that they not rely on any of President George W. Bush’s provision-bypassing signing statements without first consulting Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. In that order, Mr. Obama said he would continue the practice of issuing signing statements, though “with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well founded.”

One of the budget bill’s provisions that Mr. Obama said he could circumvent concerns United Nations peacekeeping missions. It says money may not be spent on any such mission if it entails putting United States troops under a foreign commander, unless Mr. Obama’s military advisers so recommend.

“This provision,” Mr. Obama wrote, “raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as commander in chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority.”

He also raised concerns about a section that establishes whistle-blower protections for federal employees who give information to Congress.

“I do not interpret this provision,” he wrote, “to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control and correct employees’ communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.”

In addition, the president singled out four areas of the bill that direct negotiations with other countries on certain matters, and three that issue directions about what agencies should include in budget requests.

But a majority of the challenged provisions are those allowing money to be reallocated to a different program only with the approval of a Congressional committee. Mr. Obama called the provisions “impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement” and declared that while executive-branch officials would notify lawmakers of any reallocation, “spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of Congressional committees.”

David M. Golove, a law professor at New York University who specializes in executive powers, said the prerogatives invoked by Mr. Obama were relatively uncontroversial. Still, Mr. Golove said he was surprised by the scope and detail of the objections.

“It reflects an executive branch that wishes to demonstrate publicly a commitment to upholding all of the president’s claimed constitutional prerogatives,” he said, “even when the intrusions are trivial or just a matter of infelicitous wording.”

Jeezus! Who in the hell determines what is "privileged" or "confidential"? The department head? Obama? Just like he did a few weeks ago when he required all the employees at the Pentagon who participated in Budget discussions to sign a Confidentiality Agreement preventing them from discussing budget matters with anyone outside the Pentagon? Holy Fv(k, Jon! Imagine if Bush (sounds more like a Cheney stunt) had tried to pull off something like this! What's to prevent a blanket agreement that prevents ALL employees from talking about any work-related content with non-department employees?

'Tween you and me. I hope to hell someone challenges this VERY SOON, otherwise, so long as this statement remains in effect, it will have a chilling effect on all potential Federal employees who are aware of government misconduct, but have been "muzzled" by the President.


I realize, consistency in ethos hasn't been one of the Dem's trademark qualities, but I just don't know how to convey the trust breaching relevance of not merely a tacit dismissal of constitutional inconsistencies, but an apparent overt orchestration of Democratic sympathizing NGO's and media to manipulate public opinion with the intent of distracting the public's attention AWAY from the Dem leader's conscious acts of constitutional malfeasance.

You can keep parroting the "But Bush..." line for the rest of your life...

...or you can stand up straight and announce your intent to "Do things the right way".

It is your ethos that ultimately defines you in the end.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Expected an avalanche of WTF's for my "never, ever...derogatory about Republicans" thingy. Losing my touch.

You said Republicans

All Conks, at least fiscal conservatives are not Republicans.

houndawg wrote:I think it's good that the prez is letting the process take it's course and the chips fall where they may, unlike a certain previous President of the Fukups Hall of Fame. A most refreshing change that should keep dwarves like Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Meiers out of positions of public trust.

No argument from me. Gonzales should have never obtained the level in Bush's cabinet he did, much less AG. He was a state level hack who Bush should have left behind in Texas. And Meiers was merely a close friend sycophant.

I didn't agree with either's appointments/nominations...and I agree, when you look at the kind of trouble "going to the mat" causes for Presidents (Cisneros for Clinton)...in the end, they may be "good" friends and good hearted people, but they don't belong in those levels of authority requiring extreme levels of integrity and constitutional understanding.

This is one issue I genuinely sympathize for Obama...his transition panel (CAP) has screwed the pooch with these nominees...but I gotta wonder how those "late night" conversations go:

Michelle: Baby... Barack.... YOU'RE President. It's your reputation they're destroying. You have to talk to John and David and tell them to stop what they're doing.
Baby B: Don't you think I know this? But it's frustrating for me, Michelle. You know, I owe them my career. But for David and his machine, we wouldn't be here today. I can't just "talk to them" that way.
Michelle: Baby, you are the President of the United States. You can talk to anyone in any manner you choose.
Baby B: Well there are ways to do this. You know, with subtelty...finesse...in a covert manner. (Pause)
Michelle: Watcha thinkin' ?
Baby B: I'm hesitant to do this, but during my weekly call with Soros last week, he remarked if there was any way he could assist me...you know..."any"... (Pause)
Michelle: Baby. What are you talking about. You mean, George giving them a job if they leave the staff? What...?
Baby B: I can't really talk about this...with you or anyone. But George has an overseas division that can guarantee problem resolution, and has a perfect track record.
Michelle: Baby...I'm confused?
Baby B: I can't tell anyone Michelle, but, accept the knowledge that Vince Foster and Ron Brown never talked back to Clinton once Soros learned of their disloyalty.
Michelle (puzzled look on her face): Are you saying what I think you're saying?
Baby B: Let's just say, once George realizes the problem, David and John won't be in charge of staff/cabinet selections any longer, and they'll be happy to still have a job.
Michelle (blank expression, pauses, then looks up at Baby B and grins): Hey...Baby. I like the way you think. I forgot you're the master of "wet jobs" in the U.S. (Pause) Damn, that's a turn on. Get that bulletproof vest off and get to bed Mister.

travelinman67 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote: Here's my point, Hoagenheimer. You serve no good purpose getting on the Prez like you guys do. Bush demonstrated failure over and aver and over and over again and had plain-ass criminals working with him in every corner. He earned our spite.

So has Obama, and he hasn't even been President 100 days.

Cap'n Cat wrote:If you're going to jump Obama, do it if he really shits the bed, why now? It's nothing but fashion to Conks to shit on the new president. Bandwagoning, bitter-ass election loser cocksuckers.

Here Cap, just two days ago...hyprocrisy personified...from my America's Tea Party Post yesterday...

Had Bush done this exact same thing, Congress, with it's propoganda arm MSM would have surrounded the White House with canons and declared the President mentally infirm and emotionally unfit to serve.

Yet Obama does this and loonylibs like yourself shrug your shoulders and attack the critics...

If you can, deep down in the corners of your mind, the areas you actually used a little when you were in college, search hard for a sign of rational and logic, and if you find it, you'll understand why conservative like myself have no patience or respect for dishonest liberal apologists.

How is it that you haven't cried out about Obama's use of Signing Statements yesterday to "nullify" portions of the Omnibus bill, just a few days after he publicly denounces Signing Statements, orders a review of Bush's use of signing statements, and orders a blanket rescission of all of Bush's Signing Statements?

Here's the March 9th statement by Obama...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... tatements/
Obama reins in signing statements

Spoiler: show

Rebuking his predecessor for the second time yesterday, President Obama declared that he will not use signing statements to disregard parts of laws because he disagrees on policy grounds, but only when he strongly believes provisions are unconstitutional.

In a presidential memo, Obama also ordered his top executive branch officials to seek advice from Attorney General Eric Holder about whether to enforce the hundreds of statements proffered by President George W. Bush. Critics contend Bush used such statements to expand his power, particularly on national security, by ignoring the intent or certain provisions of bills properly passed by Congress.

"There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements," wrote Obama, who also overturned Bush's restrictions yesterday on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

"I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities," the president pledged.

Obama also promised to "take appropriate and timely steps, whenever practicable" to let Congress know of his constitutional concerns about bills before they pass. He also said he would clearly lay out his constitutional objection in any signing statements he does issue; Bush was criticized for issuing signing statements with vague reasons, often asserting his powers as commander in chief.

A series of stories in the Globe in 2006 pointed out that Bush - often with little if any public notice - issued signing statements far more often than other presidents and used them to disobey more than 750 bills approved by Congress.

They emerged as an issue after he used such statements to suggest he could bypass a law on harsh interrogations of terrorism detainees and a law requiring the FBI to tell Congress how it was using expanded police powers under the Patriot Act.

Bush issued them on a wide range of issues including affirmative action, immigration, whistle-blower protections, and safeguards against political interference in scientific research. The statements are official documents, recorded in the Federal Register, in which the president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow. (The Globe stories won a 2007 Pulitzer Prize, journalism's highest honor, for Charlie Savage. Now with The New York Times, Savage first reported Obama's memo on the newspaper's website yesterday.)

During the presidential campaign, Obama blasted Bush for how he used signing statements but reserved the right to issue them himself, in a more restrained way. Republican presidential John McCain said he would not use them at all.

And his usage of them yesterday to nullify portions of the Omnibus Bill...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/us/po ... .html?_r=1
Obama Says He Can Ignore Some Parts of Spending Bill

Spoiler: show

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: March 11, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday issued his first signing statement, reserving a right to bypass dozens of provisions in a $410 billion government spending bill even as he signed it into law.

In the statement — directions to executive-branch officials about how to carry out the legislation — Mr. Obama instructed them to view most of the disputed provisions as merely advisory and nonbinding, saying they were unconstitutional intrusions on his own powers.

Mr. Obama’s instructions followed by two days his order to government officials that they not rely on any of President George W. Bush’s provision-bypassing signing statements without first consulting Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. In that order, Mr. Obama said he would continue the practice of issuing signing statements, though “with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well founded.”

One of the budget bill’s provisions that Mr. Obama said he could circumvent concerns United Nations peacekeeping missions. It says money may not be spent on any such mission if it entails putting United States troops under a foreign commander, unless Mr. Obama’s military advisers so recommend.

“This provision,” Mr. Obama wrote, “raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as commander in chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority.”

He also raised concerns about a section that establishes whistle-blower protections for federal employees who give information to Congress.

“I do not interpret this provision,” he wrote, “to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control and correct employees’ communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.”

In addition, the president singled out four areas of the bill that direct negotiations with other countries on certain matters, and three that issue directions about what agencies should include in budget requests.

But a majority of the challenged provisions are those allowing money to be reallocated to a different program only with the approval of a Congressional committee. Mr. Obama called the provisions “impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement” and declared that while executive-branch officials would notify lawmakers of any reallocation, “spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of Congressional committees.”

David M. Golove, a law professor at New York University who specializes in executive powers, said the prerogatives invoked by Mr. Obama were relatively uncontroversial. Still, Mr. Golove said he was surprised by the scope and detail of the objections.

“It reflects an executive branch that wishes to demonstrate publicly a commitment to upholding all of the president’s claimed constitutional prerogatives,” he said, “even when the intrusions are trivial or just a matter of infelicitous wording.”

Jeezus! Who in the hell determines what is "privileged" or "confidential"? The department head? Obama? Just like he did a few weeks ago when he required all the employees at the Pentagon who participated in Budget discussions to sign a Confidentiality Agreement preventing them from discussing budget matters with anyone outside the Pentagon? Holy Fv(k, Jon! Imagine if Bush (sounds more like a Cheney stunt) had tried to pull off something like this! What's to prevent a blanket agreement that prevents ALL employees from talking about any work-related content with non-department employees?

'Tween you and me. I hope to hell someone challenges this VERY SOON, otherwise, so long as this statement remains in effect, it will have a chilling effect on all potential Federal employees who are aware of government misconduct, but have been "muzzled" by the President.


I realize, consistency in ethos hasn't been one of the Dem's trademark qualities, but I just don't know how to convey the trust breaching relevance of not merely a tacit dismissal of constitutional inconsistencies, but an apparent overt orchestration of Democratic sympathizing NGO's and media to manipulate public opinion with the intent of distracting the public's attention AWAY from the Dem leader's conscious acts of constitutional malfeasance.

You can keep parroting the "But Bush..." line for the rest of your life...

...or you can stand up straight and announce your intent to "Do things the right way".

It is your ethos that ultimately defines you in the end.

I know you're not talking to me in those last three lines, bitch.

Try to recognize the humor in some of The Cap'ns posts. And, while you're at it, give Obama a chance, for God's sake. I was genuinely excited for Bush early in his tenure.

Col Hogan wrote:This is getting old...

The man President Obama appointed to be his chief technology geek is on leave after his former office in the D.C. government was raided by the FBI yesterday...

Vivek Kundra has not been directly tied to the alleged crimes involved in the raid, but he has taken a leave of absence from the Obama administration until further notice...

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=596&sid=1622618

I thought Obama told the FBI to stop raiding medical marijuana operations?