"Richard Milhous Obama?"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2011 4:04 PM GMT
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-milhous-obama/2011/05/23/AFzdYn9G_story.html

    In a television interview last October, President Obama accidentally let slip a key element of his political philosophy: “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

    Obama later apologized — not for the underlying sentiment, mind you, but for his word choice. “I probably should have used the word ‘opponents’ instead of enemies,” the president declared.

    This incident is worth remembering as the president prepares to issue a far-reaching executive order that would require the government to collect detailed information about the political activities of anyone applying for a federal contract. The proposed order would require businesses to furnish, with each contract proposal, a list not only of their contributions to political candidates and committees, but also their contributions to groups that do not under current law have to reveal their donors. The president’s order would force anyone seeking a federal contract to declare whether they are a friend or an enemy — excuse me, “opponent” — of the Obama White House. Worse still, it would set up a central database listing those contributions at a federal government Web site — creating what amounts to an electronic, searchable “enemies list.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 6:55 AM GMT
    I feel confident that such a list would only be used for the purpose of ensuring that no favoritism is shown towards any entities who donated to political campaigns. Only good can come of having this information public...

    I hope that before anybody defends the order they take the time to realize that eventually there will be a Republican in office. Assuming that we trust Obama and his intentions; is anybody willing to trust every subsequent government with this information... Are we positive that it will not misused by future administrations?

    It could be a way of trying to get around the supreme court ruling of not disclosing who is funding groups- but it seems very dangerous and worrisome route to take. Though it should result in increased contributions to both parties, and perhaps that is the point of it in the end...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 11:57 AM GMT
    Ridiculous. The public has a right to know if a contractor is "buying" their contracts. Considering that contractors are thought to waste billions of dollars every year, you should be on board with this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 12:33 PM GMT
    west77 saidI feel confident that such a list would only be used for the purpose of ensuring that no favoritism is shown towards any entities who donated to political campaigns. Only good can come of having this information public...

    I hope that before anybody defends the order they take the time to realize that eventually there will be a Republican in office. Assuming that we trust Obama and his intentions; is anybody willing to trust every subsequent government with this information... Are we positive that it will not misused by future administrations?

    It could be a way of trying to get around the supreme court ruling of not disclosing who is funding groups- but it seems very dangerous and worrisome route to take. Though it should result in increased contributions to both parties, and perhaps that is the point of it in the end...

    With all due respect, I think your trust is highly misplaced. This is a Chicago-style gutter politician who takes joy in demonizing and destroying opponents any way possible. Case in point - his mocking remarks at the border where people live in fear and are victimized by drug crime. This will be an ugly campaign, and this time, without McCain, the dirt will go both ways.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 12:47 PM GMT
    Kudos to Obama. The only ones who should fear this action are those engaging in shady dealings.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 12:53 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    With all due respect, I think your trust is highly misplaced. This is a Chicago-style gutter politician who takes joy in demonizing and destroying opponents any way possible. Case in point - his mocking remarks at the border where people live in fear and are victimized by drug crime. This will be an ugly campaign, and this time, without McCain, the dirt will go both ways.


    Ahem...McCain and his dim witted accomplice built their entire campaign on dirt throwing.

    Here is an excerpt from the St Petersburg Times, entitled From Straight Talk to Smear Campaign...based on McCain's OFTEN REPEATED LIE about Obama, "is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.''....

    ...This is a classic smear campaign. As the Times‘ PolitiFact notes, the National Journal rated Obama the most liberal senator by analyzing just 99 of 442 votes last year. He did not finish near the top in two previous years, and other ranking services rate his record as significantly less liberal than Sanders’. But McCain was not troubled by the details. He mentioned Obama and socialist in the same sentence, and the seeds of doubt were planted.

    http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article749388.ece#

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 1:00 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidRidiculous. The public has a right to know if a contractor is "buying" their contracts. Considering that contractors are thought to waste billions of dollars every year, you should be on board with this.

    Exactly. The difference with Nixon is that he compiled SECRET lists to politically sabotage his enemies, and nothing to do with contractors. The list Obama has proposed this list OPENLY, to be shared OPENLY with the US public. Its purpose is to prevent corruption in the contracting process.

    Furthermore, I believe that Obama quote in October was referring to the INTERNATIONAL scene, not domestic. So that it has no relevance to this proposal to bring about campaign contribution disclosure by Federal contractors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 7:20 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    With all due respect, I think your trust is highly misplaced. This is a Chicago-style gutter politician who takes joy in demonizing and destroying opponents any way possible. Case in point - his mocking remarks at the border where people live in fear and are victimized by drug crime. This will be an ugly campaign, and this time, without McCain, the dirt will go both ways.

    Sorry;
    I don't think that my sarcasm comes through on my posts... I really don't trust any politician. I don't honestly believe that Obama will not use this in some way (if not to actually punish companies and individuals, at least to "encourage" contributions.)

    I don't trust the present administration; I don't trust future administrations. I don't trust Republicans nor Democrats not to misuse this information.

    I do agree that people have the right to know who is funding their politicians. I think the supreme court ruling was one of the most rotten and damaging things to come out of the justice system in quite some time. I just am not certain that this is the correct action to counteract it...
    catfish5 saidKudos to Obama. The only ones who should fear this action are those engaging in shady dealings.

    I will assume that you lean left? Will you trust future Republican administrations with this information? Do you believe that Bush would have used this for purposes less than honourable?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 2:15 PM GMT
    west77 said
    socalfitness said
    With all due respect, I think your trust is highly misplaced. This is a Chicago-style gutter politician who takes joy in demonizing and destroying opponents any way possible. Case in point - his mocking remarks at the border where people live in fear and are victimized by drug crime. This will be an ugly campaign, and this time, without McCain, the dirt will go both ways.

    Sorry;
    I don't think that my sarcasm comes through on my posts... I really don't trust any politician. I don't honestly believe that Obama will not use this in some way (if not to actually punish companies and individuals, at least to "encourage" contributions.)

    I don't trust the present administration; I don't trust future administrations. I don't trust Republicans nor Democrats not to misuse this information.

    I do agree that people have the right to know who is funding their politicians. I think the supreme court ruling was one of the most rotten and damaging things to come out of the justice system in quite some time. I just am not certain that this is the correct action to counteract it...
    catfish5 saidKudos to Obama. The only ones who should fear this action are those engaging in shady dealings.

    I will assume that you lean left? Will you trust future Republican administrations with this information? Do you believe that Bush would have used this for purposes less than honourable?


    The Citizens United bill makes sense - that no one should be restricted from free speech. Corporations are only a group of people. Why should some corporations like media organizations have a greater voice than others? For a more complete argument: http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/03/reasontv-3-reasons-not-to-swea

    On the other hand, I think the solution here is to discourage disclosure but ensure that not only is there disclosure but disqualify corporations, organizations (including unions) and major shareholders who make political contributions from receiving federal contracts. What makes this more of an issue however is the ever growing public spending by politicians which allows for this to be a vehicle for payback and cronyism.

    Catfish doesn't "lean left", he's a partisan which is a special form of stupid if you've looked at the posts he's made.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2011 6:41 AM GMT
    riddler78 said

    The Citizens United bill makes sense - that no one should be restricted from free speech. Corporations are only a group of people. Why should some corporations like media organizations have a greater voice than others? For a more complete argument: http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/03/reasontv-3-reasons-not-to-swea

    On the other hand, I think the solution here is to discourage disclosure but ensure that not only is there disclosure but disqualify corporations, organizations (including unions) and major shareholders who make political contributions from receiving federal contracts. What makes this more of an issue however is the ever growing public spending by politicians which allows for this to be a vehicle for payback and cronyism.

    I agree wholeheartedly that no one should be restricted from free speech. We differ in our belief that a corporation is "only" a group of people. A corporation IS made up of people but does not necessarily represent them.

    You and I both know that a corporation does not speak for all of its members any more than a union speaks for theirs. I was a member of a union and while they would tell us to vote (usually) NDP and make contributions to that party on my behalf I found the NDP did not really represent my views.

    Usually the articles of incorporation state the goals of the corporation. That does not mean that the shareholders agree with them, nor does it mean that money should be spent on the behalf of the shareholders. In most cases, a company such a pharmaceutics company will lobby and contribute to the party they feel will give them the most profit. Often those contributions and lobbying will clash directly with the REAL interests of their share holders (think of retirees who are directly hurt by the lobbying of pharmaceutics companies but who own them indirectly through retirement plans.)

    We seem to disagree on the idea that IBM or Glaxo Smith Kline have morals and souls as a person does. I do not consider Blackwater. Locheed Martin or British Petroleum to be my rich uncle Bob who gives a rats ass about the welfare of the nations residents or what will benefit people. I don't trust them to have anonymity to lobby for any candidate or cause. I am also a little uncomfortable with a company like petrochina having the right to contribute to campaigns and be allowed free reign to publish political propaganda.