Forget Palin, here's Gary Johnson

[Procrustes Stretched]

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Glenn Greenwald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Glenn Greenwald: In March 2009 he was selected, along with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, as the recipient of the first annual Izzy Award by the Park Center for Independent Media, an award named after famed independent journalist I.F. "Izzy" Stone and devoted to rewarding excellence in independent journalism.


The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans...Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen).

===============================

There is a running dispute between Greenwald and Lawrence O'Donnell. Lawrence had Mark on his show and they agreed to disagree over O'Donnell's meanings of terms during election night reviews, that Mark Greenwald has posted about.

My issue with Greenwald here is one I have with most internet dweebs: look at what he wrote. He mentions a Bush policy, then stresses that it had not been implemented and that somehow shows how extreme the policy is when implemented, as opposed to having been the official policy. He's sophomoric, his dis-ingenuity is disturbing, and he's maybe even deluded...living in the inside bubble of media talking heads and bloggers. .

What?

What is wrong with this argument: The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans...Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen). ???

Bush has a policy, but it isn't extreme unless it is implemented? Bush reserved the right to implement the policy, yet somehow it worse under Obama? The distinctions have very little difference worth arguing over. But Greenwald does so in order to get his alarmist view to be heard.

The argument against the policy can be made without resorting to hysterics -- but what else is left to a blogger, but to be hysterical? How does a blogger get noticed?

And he is like Amy?

 

[Modbert]

Gary Johnston is not a tea party candidate.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Glenn Greenwald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Glenn Greenwald: In March 2009 he was selected, along with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, as the recipient of the first annual Izzy Award by the Park Center for Independent Media, an award named after famed independent journalist I.F. "Izzy" Stone and devoted to rewarding excellence in independent journalism.


The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans...Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen).

===============================

There is a running dispute between Greenwald and Lawrence O'Donnell. Lawrence had Mark on his show and they agreed to disagree over O'Donnell's meanings of terms during election night reviews, that Mark Greenwald has posted about.

My issue with Greenwald here is one I have with most internet dweebs: look at what he wrote. He mentions a Bush policy, then stresses that it had not been implemented and that somehow shows how extreme the policy is when implemented, as opposed to having been the official policy. He's sophomoric, his dis-ingenuity is disturbing, and he's maybe even deluded...living in the inside bubble of media talking heads and bloggers. .

What?

What is wrong with this argument: The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans...Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen). ???

Bush has a policy, but it isn't extreme unless it is implemented?

So because Bush had the same policy it's ok for Obama to do it? No. The President has no authority to assassinate an American citizen, or anyone else for that matter, without a trial, and that's true regardless of who the President is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Gary Johnston is not a tea party candidate.

Why not? He's the embodiment of what they've been preaching, a candidate who actually has a record of cutting spending.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Gary Johnston is not a tea party candidate.

The link made the argument that he'd make a good one, not that he was one.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What?

What is wrong with this argument: The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans...Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen). ???

Bush has a policy, but it isn't extreme unless it is implemented?

So because Bush had the same policy it's ok for Obama to do it?

I didn't say that. But Mark Greenwald's argument is that Obama is extreme and somehow Bush wasn't. Why? Bush didn't implement (but argued for the right to) his own policy, yet when Obama is said to want to implement the Bush policy it is so extreme not even Bush did it. Of course it's convoluted. Most of the arguments you link to are.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Glenn Greenwald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Glenn Greenwald: In March 2009 he was selected, along with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, as the recipient of the first annual Izzy Award by the Park Center for Independent Media, an award named after famed independent journalist I.F. "Izzy" Stone and devoted to rewarding excellence in independent journalism.


The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans...Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen).

===============================

There is a running dispute between Greenwald and Lawrence O'Donnell. Lawrence had Mark on his show and they agreed to disagree over O'Donnell's meanings of terms during election night reviews, that Mark Greenwald has posted about.

My issue with Greenwald here is one I have with most internet dweebs: look at what he wrote. He mentions a Bush policy, then stresses that it had not been implemented and that somehow shows how extreme the policy is when implemented, as opposed to having been the official policy. He's sophomoric, his dis-ingenuity is disturbing, and he's maybe even deluded...living in the inside bubble of media talking heads and bloggers. .

What?

What is wrong with this argument: The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans...Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen). ???

Bush has a policy, but it isn't extreme unless it is implemented? Bush reserved the right to implement the policy, yet somehow it worse under Obama? The distinctions have very little difference worth arguing over. But Greenwald does so in order to get his alarmist view to be heard.

The argument against the policy can be made without resorting to hysterics -- but what else is left to a blogger, but to be hysterical? How does a blogger get noticed?

And he is like Amy?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What is wrong with this argument: The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans...Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen). ???

Bush has a policy, but it isn't extreme unless it is implemented?

So because Bush had the same policy it's ok for Obama to do it?

I didn't say that. But Mark Greenwald's argument is that Obama is extreme and somehow Bush wasn't. Why? Bush didn't implement (but argued for the right to) his own policy, yet when Obama is said to want to implement the Bush policy it is so extreme not even Bush did it. Of course it's convoluted. Most of the arguments you link to are.

You're simply making it convoluted by turning this into a discussion of the author of the article rather than the fact that Obama reserves the right to assassinate American citizens.

 

[Modbert]

Why not? He's the embodiment of what they've been preaching, a candidate who actually has a record of cutting spending.

He's an embodiment of what they're preaching, however the people that are preaching these things are not backing it up with action. The majority of the tea party candidates we've heard about are actually social conservative on social issues.

Gary Johnston is the embodiment of what the tea party use to be, back in 2007 when it was something Ron Paul centered. In 2010, the Godfather of the Tea Party isn't even well-received by the group he started.

Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Tea Party supporters were asked in the poll what they thought of a few notable figures. The most popular was Sarah Palin, who is viewed favorably by 66 percent of people in the movement. Only 40 percent, however, believe she would be an effective president, a smaller percentage than Republicans overall.

Fifty-nine percent of Tea Party supporters have a favorable impression of Glenn Beck. Nearly as many, 57 percent, have a favorable impression of former President George W. Bush, despite his role in raising the deficit and overseeing TARP bailout of the financial sector.

Just 35 percent view John McCain favorably, and 28 percent view Ron Paul favorably.

Ron Paul comes in dead last, even behind John McCain. Considering Johnston would be considered even less Conservative on social issues, his approval rating would be even lower.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So because Bush had the same policy it's ok for Obama to do it? No. The President has no authority to assassinate an American citizen, or anyone else for that matter, without a trial, and that's true regardless of who the President is.

The Executive branch under two administrations has disagreed.

Obama seems to be disagreeing with himself here.

But framing the argument as you do makes it appear the policy allows the President to single out any American anywhere and for any reason. That is disingenuous at best.

What is the policy? How would it work? Context. I may even agree with you if you had an argument and not a morality play.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So because Bush had the same policy it's ok for Obama to do it?

I didn't say that. But Mark Greenwald's argument is that Obama is extreme and somehow Bush wasn't. Why? Bush didn't implement (but argued for the right to) his own policy, yet when Obama is said to want to implement the Bush policy it is so extreme not even Bush did it. Of course it's convoluted. Most of the arguments you link to are.

You're simply making it convoluted by turning this into a discussion of the author of the article rather than the fact that Obama reserves the right to assassinate American citizens.

The argument of the author is what you linked to, not me. You used it as a source. I replied to it.

Does Obama truly reserve this right? I say you are being disingenuous.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why not? He's the embodiment of what they've been preaching, a candidate who actually has a record of cutting spending.

He's an embodiment of what they're preaching, however the people that are preaching these things are not backing it up with action. The majority of the tea party candidates we've heard about are actually social conservative on social issues.

Gary Johnston is the embodiment of what the tea party use to be, back in 2007 when it was something Ron Paul centered. In 2010, the Godfather of the Tea Party isn't even well-received by the group he started.

Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Tea Party supporters were asked in the poll what they thought of a few notable figures. The most popular was Sarah Palin, who is viewed favorably by 66 percent of people in the movement. Only 40 percent, however, believe she would be an effective president, a smaller percentage than Republicans overall.

Fifty-nine percent of Tea Party supporters have a favorable impression of Glenn Beck. Nearly as many, 57 percent, have a favorable impression of former President George W. Bush, despite his role in raising the deficit and overseeing TARP bailout of the financial sector.

Just 35 percent view John McCain favorably, and 28 percent view Ron Paul favorably.

Ron Paul comes in dead last, even behind John McCain. Considering Johnston would be considered even less Conservative on social issues, his approval rating would be even lower.

You might be right.

 

[Modbert]

You might be right.

The reason why so many tea party candidates don't talk about social issues is because it's a losing issue for them when it comes to protecting the idea that they are Conservatives.

Sure, they're for tax cuts, but they just may have some really ignorant views about homosexuals or about what to do when it comes to the War on Drugs.

Yes, fiscal issues are important, however the reality of the situation is that a candidate for any sort of public office like the one Gary Johnston is running for or the one that Ron Paul holds, social issues are voted on or decided upon. Therefore, unless said tea party candidates are willing to abstain from every vote on social issues, their belief on said issues are of just as equal importance. And we all know that them abstaining isn't going to happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

So you prefer the status-quo candidates?

For the Executive, I prefer reasonable and balanced political leaders. Johnson is an ideologue with little experience. Obama was a pol with little experience and less ideology strapped under his vest. People like Johnson are always terrible in practice/real life, where theory and ideology run up against the real world. .

Little experience? He was Governor for 8 years.

Yes, and he made some mistakes, but did some good things for New Mexico. Appointed some folks to positions that made me cringe, but also appointed some very good people to other posts. The best thing about the Johnson Administration in New Mexico is that there is no more honest or genuine person you'll find in politics today. What he lacks in knowhow or finesse, he makes up for in sheer determination and integrity.

I've met Gary Johnson in person and know a number of his friends and associates quite well. He comes with pure libertarian credentials and a scandal free record. He is of humble beginnings and started a tiny construction company on a shoestring building it into a million dollar business in a matter of a few years, so he knows how to get things done. As a Republican in a hugely Democratic state, he won his second term by a landslide.

We could probably do better, but we could do worse than Gary. He would have a huge name recognition problem, but he's personable and likeable and would probably run a pretty good campaign.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

For the Executive, I prefer reasonable and balanced political leaders. Johnson is an ideologue with little experience. Obama was a pol with little experience and less ideology strapped under his vest. People like Johnson are always terrible in practice/real life, where theory and ideology run up against the real world. .

Little experience? He was Governor for 8 years.

Yes, and he made some mistakes, but did some good things for New Mexico. Appointed some folks to positions that made me cringe, but also appointed some very good people to other posts. The best thing about the Johnson Administration in New Mexico is that there is no more honest or genuine person you'll find in politics today. What he lacks in knowhow or finesse, he makes up for in sheer determination and integrity.

I've met Gary Johnson in person and know a number of his friends and associates quite well. He comes with pure libertarian credentials and a scandal free record. He is of humble beginnings and started a tiny construction company on a shoestring building it into a million dollar business in a matter of a few years, so he knows how to get things done. As a Republican in a hugely Democratic state, he won his second term by a landslide.

We could probably do better, but we could do worse than Gary. He would have a huge name recognition problem, but he's personable and likeable and would probably run a pretty good campaign.

He sounds likable, and in American politics that counts for much. He looks good too, we all know Lincoln wouldn't stand a rat's ass of a chance of getting elected today -- especially by Republicans. But likable only goes so far with why I think somebody is eligible or desirable for the Presidency.


Starting a construction business during a building boom is hardly equal to knowing "how to get things done"

Scandal free is okay, but I don't vote for the most moral or ethical candidate. Many of the most moral and ethical people turn out to be no such thing or worse, the real deal. Moral and ethical can lead to a Taliban type leader.

I like honesty or genuineness in a person. That goes a long way with me and it is different in my mind than a posturing based on situational morality and ethics. Finesse is a plus, but determination is a must in a leader. Integrity, I like. It can be a minus if principles take precedence over practicality.

What were his executive accomplishments. It is his executive accomplishments people have claimed make him attractive.

What did he actually do? Not what did he cut. How did he make government work better and for whom? Businesses or the people?

 

[Bfgrn]

I never considered Palin.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

He's an interesting dude. Thanks for the read.