Dem. Rep. Rips Obama: 'Aloof,' 'Bizarre,' and 'Detached'

[Soul Crusher]

"Another" one?  What you smokin', SC?

Unless you accidentally pasted in the wrong link, it's just Dem congressman Henry Cueller from TX again. 

Same dude from the link in Coach's first post in this thread.

wrong

[flipper5470]

"I just now learned that we have a "buck" from this morning's USA Today article....rest assured..I am deeply disturbed by the lack of clarity surrounding where this "buck" stops and who is responsible for dealing with it when it does...in fact...stop.  I have ordered the secretary of the treasury to give me a full accounting of this "buck" and why I was not..in any way shape or form...advised of it's existence or it's intrinsic value.  I do not think there was any wrongdoing of any kind...criminal or otherwise...in keeping the existence of this "buck" concealed.

Rest assured..I am on this and focused like a laser on settling this issue....if the Republicans let me"......Barack Obama, circa 2014.

[RRKore]

I gave you totally honest and legit answers. As president he needs to at the very least make an appearance of reassurance. He's likes having the title of "president" he just doesn't like what comes with the title which is work.

Now yer talkin'.  "Appearance of reassurance" IS a decent answer.  (Especially compared with "Why shouldn't he go" & "He's lazy", lol.)

Who would he be reassuring, though? 

Folks who think, "Fuck, I hate these damn parasitic brown kids and wish the law that lets them in didn't exist?"

Or is he reassuring the other folks who'd like to hear him say, "America has always welcomed the poor huddled masses and in that spirit I'm glad we are able to accept these desperate children who, through no fault of their own, need America's help."

This seems like one of those Bergdahl situations where no matter what he does or says there are gonna be a bunch of happy people and a bunch of unhappy people at the end.

And, like some of the more rational voices here said about that situation, the most rational course of action seems to be do what ya gotta do but don't make a big PR deal out of it.

[RRKore]

wrong

You sure?  Who is it, then?

[RRKore]

"I just now learned that we have a "buck" from this morning's USA Today article....rest assured..I am deeply disturbed by the lack of clarity surrounding where this "buck" stops and who is responsible for dealing with it when it does...in fact...stop.  I have ordered the secretary of the treasury to give me a full accounting of this "buck" and why I was not..in any way shape or form...advised of it's existence or it's intrinsic value.  I do not think there was any wrongdoing of any kind...criminal or otherwise...in keeping the existence of this "buck" concealed.

Rest assured..I am on this and focused like a laser on settling this issue....if the Republicans let me"......Barack Obama, circa 2014.

"Buck"?

Racist post reported. lol

[flipper5470]

Why should George Bush have gone to see the aftermath of Katrina?  Because you have to actually SEE some things to understand them on the purest, visceral level.   How can he possibly understand the situation...and offer support to those dealing with it ..if he doesn't get a first hand look at it?  This is leadership 101 level stuff and it is completely beyond me why anyone would even raise the question....

[Soul Crusher]

I love how fagbama blames the GOP for the mess and then on the other hands wants them to march off the cliff to amnesty with him.  lmao 

[RRKore]

Why should George Bush have gone to see the aftermath of Katrina?  Because you have to actually SEE some things to understand them on the purest, visceral level.   How can he possibly understand the situation...and offer support to those dealing with it ..if he doesn't get a first hand look at it?  This is leadership 101 level stuff and it is completely beyond me why anyone would even raise the question....

How is this situation anything like Katrina in terms of what one can see?  

In this situation, what exactly would be made easier to understand by being there?  Seeing how many kids there vs just knowing a number, maybe?

I agree that you need to actually SEE some things to understand them but I don't think this is one of those things.  (After all, we're talking about going down to see the kids, right?  Not going to the welfare office or the mexican side of town or whatever.)

Who's visceral response are we talking about really here?  Not the president's, I don't think.  For wouldn't that just make it more likely for  have an emotional response (i.e., feel sorry for all the poor kids)?  I don't think that's what you want, is it?

As ususal, this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, imo.  The president has made everyone know that he's aware of the situation and, given that no one is dying, I think that's enough.

Besides, if he went down there he would probably just be tp tear into the House some more for inaction re: immigration reform.  

[JOHN MATRIX]

Why should George Bush have gone to see the aftermath of Katrina?  Because you have to actually SEE some things to understand them on the purest, visceral level.   How can he possibly understand the situation...and offer support to those dealing with it ..if he doesn't get a first hand look at it?  This is leadership 101 level stuff and it is completely beyond me why anyone would even raise the question....

This...

[flipper5470]

Seriously?  You have stories of thousands of kids being cramped into miniscule holding areas in conditions faaaaaaaar worse than Gitmo and you're asking what is there to see?   I have to think you're being deliberately obtuse....

[Necrosis]

"Another" one?  What you smokin', SC?

Unless you accidentally pasted in the wrong link, it's just Dem congressman Henry Cueller from TX again. 

Same dude from the link in Coach's first post in this thread.

He only reads the headlines dude.


There is always somewhere Obama should be. He is only allowed one tenth of the vacation Bush was allowed due to excess melanin. He needs to go look at the border, the physical border to understand the issue.

I assume his schedule is pretty booked and not by him.

[Soul Crusher]

He only reads the headlines dude.


There is always somewhere Obama should be. He is only allowed one tenth of the vacation Bush was allowed due to excess melanin. He needs to go look at the border, the physical border to understand the issue.

I assume his schedule is pretty booked and not by him.

STFU - fagbama and her pos husband ruined their presidency bc to the two of them are thugs and pos - nothing eklse

[RRKore]

Seriously?  You have stories of thousands of kids being cramped into miniscule holding areas in conditions faaaaaaaar worse than Gitmo and you're asking what is there to see?   I have to think you're being deliberately obtuse....

Damn, I want to facetiously bring up the fact that video cameras exist in exactly the same way that you (admittedly amusingly) worded your post to me about how cars were a thing but I don't feel that's appropriate because you're pretty straight.  Damn, oh well.

Anyway, what is the desired result?  More logistical support for those charged with physically dealing with the immigrants?

And what did you say?  Conditions far worse that Gitmo?  In terms of overcrowding, OK, but I'm pretty sure that overcrowding is pretty far down the list of prisoner complaints at Gitmo.  C'mon, flipper, you're not usually big into hyperbole that I've noticed.

[flipper5470]

Video?  Hell no...you have to get down there with the people..organize that community and breathe it all up in your lungs.  And yeah...Gitmo is probably nicer..at least they aren't sending out emergency pleas for underwear and soap.  Sure the terrorists have to put up some interrogations..for a time...at least they aren't getting dumped off at a bus stop in AZ with no $$, clues or instructions.

The real issue isn't should Barry visit...it's why isn't Barry visiting?   Why isn't Barry going on TV and addressing the country...why isn't he calling for a North and Central American summit to address the problem?   Because he can't admit it's a crisis because there are no crisis' under Lord Bumblefuck...but he wants to  se it to shame the GOP into making a deal on immigration.  He could give two fucks about any of those people...like he could give two fucks about you or me.

[Dos Equis]

Yes I am fucking about.

You mean trolling? 

[headhuntersix]

If this assbag can play pool he can go to the border...how about cancelling his campaign, er whatever fundraising and do his job. Bush stopped playing golf in 2003 so ol Doc or necrosis or whatever can stop beating that dead horse.

[RRKore]

Video?  Hell no...you have to get down there with the people..organize that community and breathe it all up in your lungs.  And yeah...Gitmo is probably nicer..at least they aren't sending out emergency pleas for underwear and soap.  Sure the terrorists have to put up some interrogations..for a time...at least they aren't getting dumped off at a bus stop in AZ with no $$, clues or instructions.

The real issue isn't should Barry visit...it's why isn't Barry visiting?   Why isn't Barry going on TV and addressing the country...why isn't he calling for a North and Central American summit to address the problem?   Because he can't admit it's a crisis because there are no crisis' under Lord Bumblefuck...but he wants to  se it to shame the GOP into making a deal on immigration.  He could give two fucks about any of those people...like he could give two fucks about you or me.

Your first paragraph gave me a chuckle but your second paragraph I agree with.  I don't think he needs to do some kind of photo op with the kids but I do think the issue is a matter of foreign policy and so he should be laying into the weak-ass governments of Central America whose incompetent governance are causing its citizens to regard sending their children out of the country and into the unknown as being a safer course of action than staying in their home country.  I read a pretty good article saying the same thing earlier.  I'll find it and post and excerpt and link just in case anyone else has as much free time as I do, lol.

[flipper5470]

In a nutshell..that's the crux of my problem with our current immigration policy. It artificially depresses wages here and it slows technological growth (who needs technological innovations when manual labor is so cheap) and it perpetuates a caste system in corrupt societies in Mexico and Central America.

[RRKore]

Why 90,000 Children Flooding Our Border Is Not an Immigration Story
Virtual cities of children are fleeing their homes. This is a lot bigger than U.S. border control, a United Nations protection officer explains.

By Brian Resnick
June 16, 2014

The numbers are astounding.

Just a few weeks ago, the United States was projecting 60,000 unaccompanied minors would attempt to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of the year. That projection is now 90,000, and it may be surpassed.
 
Virtual cities of children are picking up and fleeing El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala—some of the most dangerous places in this hemisphere. In Washington, the story has stoked the longstanding debate over border policy. But U.S. immigration policy is just a small part of this story. Yes, the U.S. immigration system is now bottlenecked with the influx, prompting emergency response from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. But changing U.S. border policy won't stem the root of the exodus.

"The normal migration patterns in this region have changed," Leslie Velez, senior protection officer at the U.N. High Commission for Refugees, explains. These people aren't coming here for economic opportunity. They are fleeing for their lives.

Earlier this year, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees surveyed 404 children from Mexico and Central America who arrived in the United States illegally, and asked a simple question: Why did you leave? The report found "that no less than 58 percent of the 404 children interviewed were forcibly displaced" to a degree that warranted international protection, meaning that if the U.S. refused these children, it could be in breach of U.N. conventions.

Velez was one of the authors of that report, interviewing undocumented immigrant children across the U.S. immigration system for two hours each. They told Velez and her team stories of extreme violence, and fear of being caught up in gangs. Forty-eight percent of the children "shared experiences of how they had been personally affected by the augmented violence" at the hands of "organized armed criminal actors, including drug cartels and gangs, or by state actors."

Recently, I spoke with Velez over the phone to learn more about the forces motivating children to make the journey north. Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.

When did it become apparent that something out of the ordinary was happening with migration out of Central America?

Our sister agency, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, started the clock at the increase in violence and insecurity in the Northern Triangle in 2006.

Around 2008, it was probably the first time it really hit the U.N. refugee agency's radar. When we went back to the numbers, there was an increase in asylum applications starting as early as 2005. It wasn't too significant until we got to 2008. And in 2008 to 2013 we noted a 712 percent increase that were lodged in countries other than the United States [like Mexico, Panama, Belize, and Costa Rica].
So why are we hearing about this now?

The numbers have been doubling every year since 2011. And for us, that's dramatic. For the U.S. government—who has been really challenged in order to process this large number—I think their capacity has really been tested in the last few weeks. I think that's what generated a lot of attention. Because the numbers have rapidly increased.

And your next followup question is probably going to be, "Why?"

Yes it is. Why?

From reports that we are hearing from individuals on the ground, both from our U.N. offices that are there, as well as NGOs—in particular Catholic Relief Services in El Salvador—they have been really clear that on the ground a few important things are happening.

One is that the criminal armed actors, specifically gangs, are really operating with significant impunity and targeting children at a younger and younger age. Recently there was a very public massacre and dismemberment of children as young as seven who had refused to join the gang. So it was a message to show who is in power, who is in control.
This is a huge story, involving tens of thousands of personal stories and the intricate histories of three troubled countries. But for those unfamiliar with the happenings in Central America—how would you encapsulate what's going on down there?

It's a humanitarian crisis in the region. The numbers are alarming, but the stories behind them are even more so. The situation is basically this: we have weak governments, entrenched poverty, and a growing control and power of criminal actors.

Why kids?

That's a really good question. The kids are vulnerable because they are children. And they are being targeted.

We liken the situation very much to the situation of the recruitment of child soldiers on other continents. Children are particularly vulnerable, they are susceptible to harm, they are easily terrorized, and the very fact that they are children is the single factor in the harm that they are experiencing. They are specifically being target to be recruited. They are the ones who are being bullied.
Much of the news has focused on the U.S. response at the border. But is there much journalism coming out of the conflict areas?

There's really little. Most of the media that covers it well is Spanish media.
Is that changing?

I hope so.

Who is making the decision to flee, to go north? Is it the kids themselves, the parents? How much choice do the kids have in this and how do they make this decision?

Read the rest of the article at this link:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/why-90-000-children-flooding-our-border-is-not-an-immigration-story-20140616

[Soul Crusher]

The BBQ joint where NO ONE cuts the line... except Obama: Controversy as President becomes the
UK Daily Mail ^ | July 11, 2014 | Staff
Posted on July 11, 2014 at 9:20:16 AM EDT by C19fan

Barack Obama may have lost a few approval rating points with this move. The president was seen cutting the line at Austin's Franklin Barbecue Thursday afternoon, while in town to raise money for the Democratic Party. Lives at the eatery are infamously long, and have been known to stretch as long as three hours wait.But Mr Obama did no waiting today, as he showed up at the restaurant, shook a few hands and made his way straight to the register to order more than $300 worth of meat. 'I know this is a long line. I feel real bad, but – I’m gonna cut' Obama said. Even restaurant owner Aaron Franklin said the move was unheard of. 'That's out thing, no one skips the line...except Obama,' Mr Franklin told the Statesman.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...





Muslims are not supposed to eat pork

[240 is Back]

LOL @ rick perry and his "oh, obama, you're too mean... we need to let these illegal children in..."

lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib

[Soul Crusher]

Fagbama the worthless communist skell and ghetto pos he is cant wait on no lines

[JOHN MATRIX]

Why 90,000 Children Flooding Our Border Is Not an Immigration Story
Virtual cities of children are fleeing their homes. This is a lot bigger than U.S. border control, a United Nations protection officer explains.

By Brian Resnick
June 16, 2014

The numbers are astounding.

Just a few weeks ago, the United States was projecting 60,000 unaccompanied minors would attempt to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of the year. That projection is now 90,000, and it may be surpassed.
 
Virtual cities of children are picking up and fleeing El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala—some of the most dangerous places in this hemisphere. In Washington, the story has stoked the longstanding debate over border policy. But U.S. immigration policy is just a small part of this story. Yes, the U.S. immigration system is now bottlenecked with the influx, prompting emergency response from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. But changing U.S. border policy won't stem the root of the exodus.

"The normal migration patterns in this region have changed," Leslie Velez, senior protection officer at the U.N. High Commission for Refugees, explains. These people aren't coming here for economic opportunity. They are fleeing for their lives.

Earlier this year, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees surveyed 404 children from Mexico and Central America who arrived in the United States illegally, and asked a simple question: Why did you leave? The report found "that no less than 58 percent of the 404 children interviewed were forcibly displaced" to a degree that warranted international protection, meaning that if the U.S. refused these children, it could be in breach of U.N. conventions.

Velez was one of the authors of that report, interviewing undocumented immigrant children across the U.S. immigration system for two hours each. They told Velez and her team stories of extreme violence, and fear of being caught up in gangs. Forty-eight percent of the children "shared experiences of how they had been personally affected by the augmented violence" at the hands of "organized armed criminal actors, including drug cartels and gangs, or by state actors."

Recently, I spoke with Velez over the phone to learn more about the forces motivating children to make the journey north. Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.

When did it become apparent that something out of the ordinary was happening with migration out of Central America?

Our sister agency, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, started the clock at the increase in violence and insecurity in the Northern Triangle in 2006.

Around 2008, it was probably the first time it really hit the U.N. refugee agency's radar. When we went back to the numbers, there was an increase in asylum applications starting as early as 2005. It wasn't too significant until we got to 2008. And in 2008 to 2013 we noted a 712 percent increase that were lodged in countries other than the United States [like Mexico, Panama, Belize, and Costa Rica].
So why are we hearing about this now?

The numbers have been doubling every year since 2011. And for us, that's dramatic. For the U.S. government—who has been really challenged in order to process this large number—I think their capacity has really been tested in the last few weeks. I think that's what generated a lot of attention. Because the numbers have rapidly increased.

And your next followup question is probably going to be, "Why?"

Yes it is. Why?

From reports that we are hearing from individuals on the ground, both from our U.N. offices that are there, as well as NGOs—in particular Catholic Relief Services in El Salvador—they have been really clear that on the ground a few important things are happening.

One is that the criminal armed actors, specifically gangs, are really operating with significant impunity and targeting children at a younger and younger age. Recently there was a very public massacre and dismemberment of children as young as seven who had refused to join the gang. So it was a message to show who is in power, who is in control.
This is a huge story, involving tens of thousands of personal stories and the intricate histories of three troubled countries. But for those unfamiliar with the happenings in Central America—how would you encapsulate what's going on down there?

It's a humanitarian crisis in the region. The numbers are alarming, but the stories behind them are even more so. The situation is basically this: we have weak governments, entrenched poverty, and a growing control and power of criminal actors.

Why kids?

That's a really good question. The kids are vulnerable because they are children. And they are being targeted.

We liken the situation very much to the situation of the recruitment of child soldiers on other continents. Children are particularly vulnerable, they are susceptible to harm, they are easily terrorized, and the very fact that they are children is the single factor in the harm that they are experiencing. They are specifically being target to be recruited. They are the ones who are being bullied.
Much of the news has focused on the U.S. response at the border. But is there much journalism coming out of the conflict areas?

There's really little. Most of the media that covers it well is Spanish media.
Is that changing?

I hope so.

Who is making the decision to flee, to go north? Is it the kids themselves, the parents? How much choice do the kids have in this and how do they make this decision?

Read the rest of the article at this link:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/why-90-000-children-flooding-our-border-is-not-an-immigration-story-20140616

Fuck the UN.

[LurkerNoMore]

HAHAHA the meltdown that Obama is giving these midgets is priceless.

Could you possibly whine any more?

[RRKore]

Fuck the UN.

YOU fuck 'em.

They probably have the bad AIDs.