Originally Posted by ApesAreFun

I guess your previous president pissed on the constitution then...

 

Originally Posted by jesterwords

im pretty sure i said bush was bad news for the us as well.

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

obama 129 in ~3.5 years (as of early July)

bush II 288 in 4 years

Clinton 15 in 8 years

Bush I 3 in 4 years

it's painful to watch the stupid seep out of your pores. but a google ffs. it really is insulting to see you post and treat everyone like your ignorance is their fault.

It's painful to watch GOP like urself, spew shit and have followers believe it ala beck, limbaugh. My days get more enjoyable when I can check OT for NJC political threads and know they will make me smh and laugh at ridiculous shit. I may not be the best debater but I'm not stupid enough to believe the shit you twist and spew. For the record I don't think Obama is a savior or perfect but when Romney literally takes credit for the bailout and now denounces it or the healthcare stuff you have no choice but to say are u kidding me? Obama was fucked either way, no bailout those companies fold and lose hundreds and thousands of jobs, gop hits him with you're unamerican taking away jobs or bailout and then spending bad etc. damned if you do and damned if u don't.

NDAA and the no free speech around anyone protected by the Secret Service is enough for me to know that Obama hates freedom.

 

Originally Posted by time4badbeat

NDAA and the no free speech around anyone protected by the Secret Service is enough for me to know that Obama hates freedom.

Bills that passed through a Republican house full of tea party representatives nearly uncontested?

The NDAA was a bill he put a signing statement upon expressing his trepidation about the detention section It was revised because he was going to veto the previous one that went even further with language that mandated military detention of terror suspects rather than offering any domestic due process. This was the year's defense spending bill, he was threatening to veto.

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 was sponsored by a republican and does very little to change previous existing laws and powers held by the secret service to arrest trespassers at the White House. This bill was so routine it was opposed by 3 representatives.

Does it ever bother you when you find out that you're being blatantly manipulated and misled?

 

Originally Posted by ApesAreFun

Some people itt thread watch too much Faux News....

 

Originally Posted by pistol45

Bills that passed through a Republican house full of tea party representatives nearly uncontested?

The NDAA was a bill he put a signing statement upon expressing his trepidation about the detention section It was revised because he was going to veto the previous one that went even further with language that mandated military detention of terror suspects rather than offering any domestic due process. This was the year's defense spending bill, he was threatening to veto.

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 was sponsored by a republican and does very little to change previous existing laws and powers held by the secret service to arrest trespassers at the White House. This bill was so routine it was opposed by 3 representatives.

Does it ever bother you when you find out that you're being blatantly manipulated and misled?

Wrong. Obama asked for the NDAA language to be applied to Americans.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Some people itt excuse Obama for the same actions they called out Bush for.

That's pretty vague. I see a lot of people complaining about thing Obama does that have been done throughout history. Did you know he has had the audacity to send our military overseas and bomb other countries!?! He's also infringed upon the rights of people and kept them locked away in some international prison for years without a lawyer or a jury trial! He also cut/raised taxes while we were in debt. Each of these arguments have been pretty much where both benches traded positions when the office changed hands. I'm not really in favor of the Qaddafi bombings, nor about Gitmo still being open, and I would have preferred they let the Bush tax cuts expire. In the scheme of things, though, all of these things were compromises for the political climate. I'd prefer they hold the office for another term than they give it right back to the neocons, so I'm forgiving those issues.

 

Originally Posted by pistol45

That's pretty vague. I see a lot of people complaining about thing Obama does that have been done throughout history. Did you know he has had the audacity to send our military overseas and bomb other countries!?! He's also infringed upon the rights of people and kept them locked away in some international prison for years without a lawyer or a jury trial! He also cut/raised taxes while we were in debt. Each of these arguments have been pretty much where both benches traded positions when the office changed hands. I'm not really in favor of the Qaddafi bombings, nor about Gitmo still being open, and I would have preferred they let the Bush tax cuts expire. In the scheme of things, though, all of these things were compromises for the political climate. I'd prefer they hold the office for another term than they give it right back to the neocons, so I'm forgiving those issues.

LOL you are just using the same logic the other side uses to excuse its votes on stuff. And letting the Bush tax cuts expire doesn't seem like a very "progressive" idea when it means it will make the tax code less progressive. Obama doesn't need to "compromise" on sending troops overseas. He is the commander in chief for fuck's sake. Gitmo being open was horrible under Bush but ok under Obama as a compromise? Really? I'm tired of the old argument that 'well the other side did it before so how can you complain now?". There aren't any sides other than the side of the government and the side of the people. Most of you fucks fight for the side of the government no matter which direction you think you lean in the "right/left" paradigm.

Pistol, your attitude that its ok to excuse Obama or Democrats for compromise sounds exactly like Rick Santorum here where Ron Paul calls him out on it. Starts at 2:40




"Team sport" my ass!

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Wrong. Obama asked for the NDAA language to be applied to Americans.

"Detainee Matters: The Administration strongly objects to section 1034 which, in purporting to affirm the conflict, would effectively recharacterize its scope and would risk creating confusion regarding applicable standards. At a minimum, this is an issue that merits more extensive consideration before possible inclusion. The Administration strongly objects to the provisions that limit the use of authorized funds to transfer detainees and otherwise restrict detainee transfers and to the provisions that would legislate Executive branch processes for periodic review of detainee status and regarding prosecution of detainees"...."cause delays in taking into custody individuals who pose imminent threats to the nation’s safety. If the final bill presented to the President includes these provisions that challenge critical Executive branch authority, the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...r_20110524.pdf

Congress was specifically trying to define how the executive branch detained and tried terror suspects and remove the funding that would be necessary to transport suspects to America to take them through our judicial system. It restricted the executives' options for making deals or whatever with terror suspects for intelligence. The opposition was to sections equivalent to mandatory minimum laws, not a protection of the rights for individual suspects. If anything the White House was closer to the ACLU here than Congress, but he's still got a long ways to before resolving the indefinite detention problem.

I don't see the part where Obama was trying to make American citizens subject to indefinite detention. Perhaps the exemption was part of that larger section that the White House asked to be removed?

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

LOL you are just using the same logic the other side uses to excuse its votes on stuff. And letting the Bush tax cuts expire doesn't seem like a very "progressive" idea when it means it will make the tax code less progressive. Obama doesn't need to "compromise" on sending troops overseas. He is the commander in chief for fuck's sake. Gitmo being open was horrible under Bush but ok under Obama as a compromise? Really? I'm tired of the old argument that 'well the other side did it before so how can you complain now?". There aren't any sides other than the side of the government and the side of the people. Most of you fucks fight for the side of the government no matter which direction you think you lean in the "right/left" paradigm.

Spittin Fiya

 

Originally Posted by time4badbeat

I love that you automatically assume that just because I dislike Obama that I automatically support republicans. why didn't Obama veto ndaa ?

Why didn't your candidate filibuster NDAA?

 

Originally Posted by pistol45

I don't see the part where Obama was trying to make American citizens subject to indefinite detention. Perhaps the exemption was part of that larger section that the White House asked to be removed?

So you don't believe Democratic Senator Carl Levin?

 

Originally Posted by pistol45

Why didn't your candidate filibuster NDAA?

Both Rand and Ron Paul did about as much as they could to fight that bill.

 

Originally Posted by pistol45

I suggested a possible scenario, but I don't know the specifics behind his statement. It seems like every example in this thread, including OP, has been a contextual misrepresentation of the White House's position, or the law in question. All of this intended to mislead the reader regarding Obama's positions, when the reality is almost polar opposite.

If it was polar opposite then he'd have vetoed the bill