GOP Failure Watch Part II

Well, to be fair, Nixon actually ended the war in Vietnam. I mean, after he expanded it but then, Obama had the 'surge' too.

Well, if you put it like that I agree but then all you're saying is that what had, until then, been considered a right-wing Republican president is worse than a modern Democratic president. I think most people would say, 'I would hope so'.

Personally I think the way he abandoned the idea of the individual health-care mandate without even apparently trying was a disappointment, particularly when compared to Nixon's plans in the mid 70's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#1960s-1980s

In his 1974 State of the Union address, President Richard M. Nixon called for comprehensive health insurance.[19] On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon's plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and provided a federal health plan, similar to Medicaid, that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income.[20][21] The New York Daily News wrote that Ted Kennedy rejected the universal health coverage plan offered by Nixon because it wasn't everything he wanted it to be. Kennedy later realized it was a missed opportunity to make major progress toward his goal.[22]

Of course, the political landscape is radically different now and Obama has to cope with what's been called the 'American Taliban' element of the Republican party but, even so, the guy's been a disappointment to many.

Bush 43 ahead, Bush/Obama not applicable. Neither has done anything unusual for a US President. Governing a country requires more difficult decisions than "I'm going to be a good guy".

Obama's extrajudicial killings have been of US citizens abroad who had declared themselves enemies of the United States. Since the US generally prohibits trials in absentia (other than, for instance, when a defendant flees), due process isn't possible. Therefore, by your standards, there is no possible way to bring such a person to justice. Instead, Obama killed a declared enemy of the United States with permission from the government in which that person was living. I'm OK with that, and it does not in any way suggest that all that's necessary is a designation of "I want to kill that person". Obama couldn't declare random Americans to be on that list because we're subject to due process in this country and we haven't declared ourselves to be enemies of the state.
Incidentally, history shows that every single President would take the same view. Nixon, for instance, authorized completely illegal bombing campaigns of foreign countries secretly, a campaign in which the US dropped more bombs than it did in all of WWII, and then had the army lie to Congress about it. The extra-judicial killings that have your little brain so wound up aren't any different than covert action undertaken since the founding of OSS.

There's absolutely no chance politically of that happening. None.

Nixon's expansion of the war in Vietnam and Obama's surge aren't even remotely comparable.

Politicians the country over love this statement.

Can you provide evidence that Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki was a "declared enemy" of the United States? I searched, but can't find any. And is the act of declaring yourself an enemy of the state not protected speech? What did he do?

Yes, trials in abstensia are problematic. But indictments aren't. What crimes was Mr. al-Awlaki indicted for? Hell, what crimes was he accused of? Lots of Americans live overseas. What protections do they have from killing if the government of the country they live in says sure, kill them?

So, non-evil Presidents (in your terms) like, well, everyone but Nixon I guess would be fundamentally ok with ordering the death of a U.S. citizen who said something they didn't like?

So does every member of the fact based community. You seem to think that crazy people will stop being crazy if we declare ourselves to be isolationist.

I'd say calling for the killing of American servicemen qualifies as "declared enemy of the United States", yeah. As for whether or not it's protected speech, you're a really shitty lawyer. Awlaki wasn't censored, he was killed.

Well, if those people retreat into the hills of that country and then loudly proclaim that they support the killing of American personnel in that country, that they support terrorist attacks on the United States and that they support terrorist acts against the US, I'm guessing the US won't protect them. If I decided to move to Zaire and support terrorist attacks, I wouldn't expect embassy personnel to save me from an attack requested by the Zaire government. Incidentally, Yemen didn't simply permit the killing, Yemen authorized the elimination of Awlaki itself.

Again, your claims that Awlaki said something that Obama "didn't like" ignore, you know, all the facts. Awlaki openly stated he supported the killing of American soldiers in Yemen. You're making ludicrously tenuous claims. Again. As you've been doing the entire time to try and argue that what Awlaki was guilty of was just saying something Obama didn't like.
Incidentally, we've had plenty of "evil" Presidents, you just didn't ask about them.

That would be crazy. Good thing I've never advocated that. It doesn't speak well of you that you would either throw up an irrelevant straw man or accuse me of something I've never come close to saying.

Oh, ok. I feel much better now. At least he still has his free speech rights.

And the U.S., under the direction of one person, ordered and carried out the killing. Yemen didn't kill Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, people under the orders of the President did.

Yes, I do, because supposedly we are innocent until proven guilty. I have asked for proof. I'm willing to look at evidence. But no one yet has provided anything.

What did Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki do to deserve non-due process justice?

All the things everyone here has posted. The only reason you continue with your lying is that you willfully ignore the facts other people post. You're like Paul Ryan. By your logic, if I moved to another country and then started killing Americans, there would be no way for the US to ever kill me, even if I went on national television and said I was killing Americans, since we don't do trials in absentia.
In other words, your argument is stupid, and the only reason you keep making it is by lying.

In short, enjoy the stupid confidence of calling Obama "evil" because he raids the pot dispensaries "sick" people use to cure their.........um..........glaucoma, yeah, that's it.

Yes, that's exactly what I believe.

You do realize that was a hell of a jump there, especially as I've not been exactly defending Nixon here.

Perhaps I should not have used the phrase "anywhere close". I disavow that.

I think people are getting a little too excited with this 'Nixon vs. Obama' smack-down talk when there's no really sensible way to compare because the period's are very different. The point at issue was whether Obama can be called left of centre in any meaningful sense and, on the basis of a historical perspective AND a comparison to other administrations abroad, I'd have to say, no.

First, I think it is very possible to compare politicians across 40 or 50 years, and second, this is the "GOP Failure Thread" so I am not at all convinced that "point at issue" is whether or not obama is left of centre when compared to administrations abroad.

Dude, we're up to three and a half thousand posts. I think we're allowed a little leeway.

Umm- no he didn't.

See "Case-Church Amendment." That's what ended US involvment.

@argentine soccer fan

methinks GOP Failure Watch Part III needs to be made, no?

Duh, Libertarian

This is a common theme in shake's posts. He says ludicrously stupid things, people suggest that reasoning/logic is stupid because it means X, and he then completely disavows that logic because he never technically typed that.

That's the beauty of letting other people do the intellectual heavy lifting. Shakes doesn't have to take any responsibility for any of the logically inconsistent (ie stupid) things he suggests.