From The Foundry   President Obama reveals his thinking
Â
SEOUL —Unaware that a microphone was recording him, President Obama
asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Monday for breathing room until after Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign to negotiate on missile defense.
“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s import
ant for him to give me space,†Mr. Obama told Mr. Medvedev at the end of their 90-minute meeting, apparently referring to incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Mr. Medvedev replied, “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…â€
“This is my last election,†Mr. Obama said. “After my election, I have more flexibility.â€
The Russian leader responded, “I understand. (we do too President Obama) I transmit this information to Vladimir.â€
The exchange was picked up by microphone of a Russian reporter as journalists were allowed into the meeting room for remarks by the two leaders. It was first reported by ABC News, which said it verified the conversation. A Washington Times reporter heard a portion of the tape that begins with Mr. Obama saying, “This is my last election.â€
The two leaders are in Seoul for a nuclear security summit i
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 67
i have not seen any real amount of discussion on how he will be if re-elected - maybe we have all been too afraid of the idea to verbalize it, even tho we can sense it.
if anyone thought he had violated laws, the constitution, and economically sodomized us before ......... we maybe "aint seen nuttin yet".
Oops. That isn't exactly true. The people. The people will be the enemy and they may need those big ships to drive us out to the middle of the ocean.
Yep, they better keep them.
Not illegal. And not particularly unusual. The same thing was done with the previous USS Enterprise (CV-6) back in the 50s by the Eisenhower (a Republican) administration.
Which was arguably better than deliberately nuking it, like the Truman (a Democrat) administration did with the Saratoga (CV-3) back in '46.
That's the kind of thing they do to old navy ships after they decommission them. Even famous ones with lots of history.
I guess they are just to big to put in an enclosed area of a museum. They are little mini towns.
We keep voting for the free stuff at our own cost
He promised so many new programs in his last speech it will force him to hire many people as well as financially back the programs. Does it slip his mind that we have no money?
But we have lots of smart Democrats here in Gather and they don't hear him.
Actually, I don't know why I want him gone so bad. We know we have to go through this very type of thing during end times. Guess I'll sit back and enjoy it :)
I don't particularly want him or any of the other doofus's (not including Ron Paul - but they will never let him in) ... but then again someone has to do the job ...
Hopefully, he'll be able to work out a deal that doesn't re-ignite a Cole War-style arms race, because I think that would be scarier than these overheard remarks.
To look at the other side of the coin, it may be that President Obama really was being sincere (cough, cough) (it is possible) that I am being unfair to him.
And if He makes it in for a 2nd term and he is open, honest and rules with integrity, I'll make a public apology.
But until that time, I'm going to believe he means that since he doesn't have to worry about an election at the end of next term, he has lots of time and wiggle room to pretty much do what he wants post election.
PS I have kind of wondered if Iran drops the bomb on Israel and we drop a bomb on Iran ... would Russia send bombs over here?
Wil, you have to be open minded and honest if President Obama gets in and disobeys the rules.
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that President Obama was saying that he would be able to negotiate differently after the election than he would be able to before the election. If you want to call that "wiggle room", I think that's reasonable. But I don't see any reason to believe that he meant that he would be able to do whatever he wants.
And anyway, if you go with the idea that he meant that his increased flexibility after the election means he'll be able to do what he wants without having to worry about votes, it seems to me that would mean that he could be more conservative.
"PS I have kind of wondered if Iran drops the bomb on Israel and we drop a bomb on Iran ... would Russia send bombs over here?"
A highly unlikely scenario to begin with (esp. since Iran doesn't have "the bomb"), but if it were to happen, I seriously doubt that Russia would nuke the U.S.
"Wil, you have to be open minded and honest if President Obama gets in and disobeys the rules."
What rules are you accusing President Obama of disobeying, Glome?
And this doesn't bother you? Do you really respect someone who will wait to do something the country doesn't want them to do, and plan it in advance, and you will still elect them??? What is wrong with you?
One thing (I noticed :) about evaluating the news is we judge it using our fore determine opinion concerning that person.
Such as Char and I have accepted in our own thinking that President Obama 1. Has an unmentioned goal that is his own secret. 2 Also, we've accepted that he does lie.So from the beginning of any article, we are reading it through that prism. But, I think if he changed and became straight forward, we would notice that somewhere along the line.
You accept what he says pretty much because you have a different opinion of him.
Btw, everybody who said that kids working on the farm rules and regs isn't the law yet? I thought it was. Is it going to be voted on or can it just be silently put into the regulation book?
I don't think we're in any trouble.
I think we need to close down the Federal Education dep and use 1/4 the money to have a couple of people going through all the regs for business and begin the process of removing as many regs as possible that wouldn't ?????? They'll have to figure out what their guide for determining regs that can be eliminated.
And put the other 3/4 $$ on our debt.
Actually, I'm thinking 2 people can't do it. Maybe 2 per each possible job :)
He either doesn't feel up to doing what he wants while it can still be judged by the public becuase he feels they will not agree (in a very strong way), or he want to keep it out of the campaign debates, or he simply hasn't got a clue of what to do and he is afraid that he will be seen as being lead around by the Russian Putin.
IN any case he wants to 'kick' that can down the road until he feels he won't care about public accountability.
When there is so much secretive, all we can do is draw unsure conclusions. But I'm pretty happy with my conclusion :)
They each have some traits that are good
I wish Trump was running. I don't think he is someone I would like personally, but I'd be willing to gamble putting him in as president to straighten out our trading and business.
ME "Wil, you have to be open minded and honest if President Obama gets in and disobeys the rules."
WIL "What rules are you accusing President Obama of disobeying, Glome?"
I don't know which ones he will break in the future. I know he put two appointees in on a day off and called it a recess. I know, others have done it too. It's going to court shortly in Washington.
I'm not sure if putting in czars was against any rules or not. But it is now.
But mainly, he lies so much that I just don't trust him. He doesn't seem to have a sense of submission to truth. That leads to wide spread mistrust.
Oh yes, isn't it against the law for the fed government to own businesses. They do now I believe. I also know about all the laws that have been added in general, but don't know that he is specifically involved, but I do feel that everything in his little body is aching to go that direction. That probably doesn't count :)
Are you going to be open minded and honest if he breaks rules? Will you admit it?
is the fact that one of the auto co's was divided in such a way that they gave the Union 55%. And now their stupid green car doesn't work. I'll bet those CEO's are really enjoying running this co. :)
I wonder if anyone is keeping track :) So we can go back and change it or prosecute, depending on how gross was the transgression.
No, it wasn't "a day off". It was what the Senate calls a "pro forma session" which lasts for less than a minute and during which, according to the rules of the Senate, the Senate may conduct no official business. If it's going to court, then it can be determined whether making those recess appointments was legal or not. Until it's been declared illegal in court, the presumption of innocence applies, doesn't it?
"I'm not sure if putting in czars was against any rules or not. But it is now."
No, it's not against the law for a president to appoint people to Executive Branch positions, even if people refer to them as a "czar" rather than using their official title, like Deputy Assistant Secretary of Population Affairs (AKA "birth control czar") or Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs (AKA "border czar").
"Oh yes, isn't it against the law for the fed government to own businesses."
No, it isn't. Some examples of corporations chartered and owned by the federal government include the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (created in the 50s), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (started in the late 60s or early 70s, I think), the Tennessee Valley Authority (even older, from the 30s), and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AKA Amtrak, also created in the 70s).
"Are you going to be open minded and honest if he breaks rules? Will you admit it?"
If real examples of illegal activity are presented, I'll admit it. Heck, I'll even criticize President Obama for things he's done that, while they might be legal, I still don't agree with. But they have to be real things that have actually happened.
i notice you skipped over violating contract law, and directing a complete and utter contradiction of the bankruptcy act.
here is more you may want to skip over - deciding he simply would ignore doma (which may need to be repealed - but cant just ignore it), along with voter intimidation in philedelphia he orchestrated for the doj to ignore, that was won, over and done, al but needing only a brief from the new doj that they failed to file on purpose. oh - and fast and furious - pretty sure supplying weapons to people committing felonies against our own country makes him 'aiding and abetting'. then there is the directives to epa to institute his cap and trade programs, when the legislature had already said they would not pass it, and not waste their time voting on it.
wont even begin to get into the health care bill he crammed thru, that is probably nconstitutional in many ways - plus if it stands, it will be violating fair business practice acts, by forcing all other companies out of the industry, creating a monopoly.which any idiot with a few facts, a pencil and paper can figure out.
those are just off the top of my head - but pretty sure you wont respond with anything intelligent or meaningful; - if you respond at all soo dont want to waste a lot of time on you.
i notice you skipped over violating contract law, and directing a complete and utter contradiction of the bankruptcy act."
I'm sure I skipped over a lot of things that you've made up in your own mind, Del. That's because I'm writing about real things that are actually going on in the real world.
I'm very scatter brained Mel, I don't remember how things go.
they refused to even take a vote.
so wil - what did i say that is made up?
i gave you specific violations - they are not made up - so apparantly, you have no answer based on fact - typical of obama supporters
No, you said things like "violating contract law, and directing a complete and utter contradiction of the bankruptcy act" and "deciding he simply would ignore doma" and "voter intimidation in philedelphia he orchestrated for the doj to ignore". None of those are "specific violations", Del. They are, as near as I can tell, things you made up in your own mind.
That's nonsense. Why the rule, because one might die? We're all going to do that. It's not worth wearing Armour all your life.
Sue B,
It isn't the pay. They just decided they're too young to work outside the home so parents shouldn't use them in any money making way.
There are details. I don't remember but it had to do with how high they can get off the ground. Such as ... no driving a tractor which boys and girls have only done for over 100 yrs. How close they can get to any live stock or chicken eggs. A bunch of regs like that.
You know that Congress, not the President, passes laws, right? In any case, no laws have been passed making it illegal to protest, and the proposed changes to Dept of Labor regulations doesn't make it illegal for farmers to have their own children working on their farms.
"If that's not illegal I don't know what is!"
For something to be illegal, there has to be a law that it violates, and not just vague accusations.
According to the US Dept of Labor, it goes something like this:Also according to the Dept of Labor, "Minors of any age may be employed by their parents at any time in any occupation on a farm owned or operated by his or her parent(s)." There are, however, regulations that limit what kind of work parents can require/allow their children (under the age of 16) to do on their farm.
I still do not know what constitutes "working on farms" according to what she stated.
I don't know what "working on farms" means as defined by Patricia J, but hopefully she'll come back and address the responses to her comment. But I won't hold my breath while I'm waiting.
no - if the government can impose incredibly huge fines, and put you in jail for violating these regulations - it feels pretty much the same as being illegal - plus the 'regs' are imposed under a broad aurthority given to that committee/board etc so violating them is considered a criminal offense.
and since your sarcastic, and demeaning comment of "You know that Congress, not the President, passes laws, right? ", when this is about regs, that are defacto laws, shows the credibility you deserve - why read thru the rest of your crap.
I then gave examples of what I meant by the question according to what she had stated, not according to what has been the law all along because she said he just passed this law. This would mean there are new details. She said it was illegal so if it's illegal it's not going to be in any codified law. That's why I asked. Giving me the details and regulations of what has been a part of the law is not going to tell me what she said is illegal as it pertains to the defintion of what "working on a farm" means.
Did you not understand my statement or its context, Del? It was in reference to Patricia's claims that "he [President Obama] has already passed a law making it illegal to protest and just last week he made it illegal for farmers to have their own children working on their farms" and suggesting that those things are illegal. Patricia has not only failed to provide any evidence that President has actually done the things she's accused him of, she's also failed to point to any particular laws he would be breaking if in fact he had done so.
As for all that stuff you've written about violating government regulations, yes, doing so is illegal and I didn't say otherwise. Regulations aren't "defacto laws" they're administrative laws established by the Executive Branch under the authority of statutory laws passed by the Legislative Branch. And violating them is illegal, but generally considered a civil, not a criminal offense.
"why read thru the rest of your crap"
I don't know, Del. But then I don't know what you're reading through any of my comments, since you said way back in early February that it was "not a big problem to ignore you - which i will do from now on", and yet here you are not ignoring me. Again.
even tho i basically ignore you - much like a wart, it is hard to not notice when it comes back.
None of which requires that you pay any attention to what I write, or respond in any way, given your earlier statement. Some people say what they mean. Some people mean what they say. In this case, it seems that you haven't managed to do either.
"even tho i basically ignore you - much like a wart, it is hard to not notice when it comes back."
I think that might be referred to as "poor impulse control".
As far as I know, no such law exists. If she's referring to proposed changes to Dept of Labor regulations involving child labor in agricultural occupations, then the proposed rule change is available from the Dept of Labor website. You can also see the same document, along with a lot of supporting and related material, and all the comments submitted by the public by going to Regulations.gov and searching using the RIN docket number 1235-AA06. There's also info about it from the Sec. of Ag's office on the USDA Blog.
Me: "Okay, so I see that in the comment to del you're saying Obama has made no new restrictions nor imposed details that are illegal."
You: "As far as I know, no such law exists."
Yes, I think I understood that you wanted to make it clear that he has made no such law that Patricia said he had.
So there has been a proposal, however, and this proposal is being submitted as a part of Labor Law. Thank you for the links. I did take a look at The USDA blog.
I can certainly understand from reading that how people who live on farms might have concerns. I still don't know exactly what their concerns might be, but it seems to me that this is of concern because it doesn't seem logical and it's rather nebulous.
"However, statistics show that while only 4 percent of working youth are in the agriculture sector, 40 percent of fatalities of working kids are associated with machines, equipment, or facilities related to agriculture."
This doesn't seem to me to be a proposal for the Department of Labor, but one for perhaps the Department of Health and Human Services. Obviously, there are far more kids who are working on and with dangerous equipment who are not showing up in labor stats. Not all kids who work on their parents' farms get paid at all, I am sure. They may just be doing what is required of them as part of a family team, such as washing the dishes and making your bed was when I was a kid. There was no money exchanged for those chores, but just expected as a contribution to the family. So this proposal is not going to protect those kids whose parents are not paying them at all.
My first thoughts are that they're just going to make sure they are going to collect taxes from those klds who are getting some payment from their parents, but I would like to know from a family that lives on a farm what the implications are that they see. If safety is really the issue, this doesn't belong in the Labor Department because we are speaking of many kids who are minors and are not a part of the labor force.
"There is nothing in the proposed rule that affects the ability of parents and families to assign chores and tasks to their children."
Well, obviously, that's not true or there would be no reason for the proposal. If there are some kids who are working with dangerous equipment now (not saying that they should be) it will be against the law if they do work with it, but it will only be against the law if they're getting paid if it's under the umbrella of labor so this doesn't seem to have as much to do with safety as they seem to want to make people think it does. I don't blame them for being wary. There's just something that stinks about this, but I don't know enough about farm life to know whether it's cow manure or horse manure.