1. #9041
    Scarab Lord cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    Rights don't correct wrongs. I'm sorry, I don't think a man who has O.K.ed a bill restriciting the civil liberties of his citizens can be viewed as one of the "greatest presidents of our time".
    It's a good thing it's all black and white then, right?

    Every issue is complicated, every piece of legislation passed had compromise all over it.
    Last edited by cubby; 2012-09-26 at 04:32 PM.
    The less you know, the more you believe.


    Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
    I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.

  2. #9042
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I just can't take you seriously when you focus on one issue and ignore everything else.
    If he by mistake made a bad call when it comes to an economic policy or slipped something by mistake in a speech, sure. But certain deeds tell enough a man's character that no matter what else he does, it will never make up for it. Atleast not if he doesn't reverese the policy, but in fact, he actively sought to keep it in place when the lawsuit by amongst others Noam Chomsky had some initial success.

    (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...he-ndaa-2012-9)

    I'm just trying to imagine how liberals would act if McCain had won, and had essentially conducted the exactly identical foreign policy as Obama.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-09-26 at 04:43 PM.

  3. #9043
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    He hasn't shown any resistance to it. I find that distressing.

  4. #9044
    Scarab Lord cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    If he by mistake made a bad call when it comes to an economic policy or slipped something by mistake in a speech, sure. But certain deeds tell enough a man's character that no matter what else he does, it will never make up for it. Atleast not if he doesn't reverese the policy, but in fact, he actively sought to keep it in place when the lawsuit by amongst others Noam Chomsky had some initial success.

    (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...he-ndaa-2012-9)

    I'm just trying to imagine how liberals would act if McCain had won, and had essentially conducted the exactly identical foreign policy as Obama.
    It's not like he invaded a country illegally . . . .

    You try to make more of something than it really is because of your bias. I'm not sure I can continue discussing Obama with you - if you don't understand the larger picture on this one issue, how can you understand any complicated issue?
    The less you know, the more you believe.


    Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
    I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.

  5. #9045
    Immortal mistuhbull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Quel'Thalas
    Posts
    7,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    He hasn't shown any resistance to it. I find that distressing.
    "it" being the NDAA?

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...sident-hr-1540

    When he signed it he said that he didn't like it and wouldn't utilize parts of it against US citizens.


    The fact of the matter that people like to neglect is that the NDAA is part of the defense budget. It's made by Congress (not the POTUS) and had he NOT signed it then the DoD (and armed forces) wouldn't have gotten their funding for the year. And tell me, how effective at defending is a Department of Defense with no money?


    Edit: because it's long and people will bitch about it being too long so they won't read

    1) The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

    2) I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

    3) Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

    the relevant to my comment bits
    Last edited by mistuhbull; 2012-09-26 at 04:57 PM.
    Theron/Bloodwatcher 2013!

    Quote Originally Posted by Alsompr View Post
    Teasing, misdirection. It's the opposite of a spoiler. People expect one thing? BAM! Another thing happens.

    I'm like M. Night fucking Shamylan.

  6. #9046
    Scarab Lord cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by mistuhbull View Post
    "it" being the NDAA?

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...sident-hr-1540

    When he signed it he said that he didn't like it and wouldn't utilize parts of it against US citizens.


    The fact of the matter that people like to neglect is that the NDAA is part of the defense budget. It's made by Congress (not the POTUS) and had he NOT signed it then the DoD (and armed forces) wouldn't have gotten their funding for the year. And tell me, how effective at defending is a Department of Defense with no money?
    They don't care. They see one issue, ignore reasoning and logic, and shore up any arguments against it. There is no reasoning if they don't want to listen.
    The less you know, the more you believe.


    Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
    I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.

  7. #9047
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    They don't care. They see one issue, ignore reasoning and logic, and shore up any arguments against it. There is no reasoning if they don't want to listen.
    It's nice that you can making generalizations without actually knowing anything about me. I understand that the NDAA includes the defense budget. I understand that not signing it would have left our military without funding. I am quite aware of Obama's statements regarding the use of the powers provided to him by the NDAA. I am not a close minded idiot, contrary to what you may think.

    My concern comes from Obama's defence of it. When the violations were brought up in court, his administration fought to defend them. I understand that that is the job of the president, to enforce the law, but the way that his administration defended the measures leaves me uneasy.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1893652.html

    I do care. If I didn't I wouldn't be putting up with this.

  8. #9048
    Scarab Lord cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    It's nice that you can making generalizations without actually knowing anything about me. I understand that the NDAA includes the defense budget. I understand that not signing it would have left our military without funding. I am quite aware of Obama's statements regarding the use of the powers provided to him by the NDAA. I am not a close minded idiot, contrary to what you may think.

    My concern comes from Obama's defence of it. When the violations were brought up in court, his administration fought to defend them. I understand that that is the job of the president, to enforce the law, but the way that his administration defended the measures leaves me uneasy.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1893652.html

    I do care. If I didn't I wouldn't be putting up with this.
    That's a very fair critique of the situation. And I don't think you are a closed minded idiot, whatsoever. That being said, focusing on one part of one item as an overall critique of a President's legacy, you would have to admit, is very short sighted.
    The less you know, the more you believe.


    Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
    I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.

  9. #9049
    Quote Originally Posted by mistuhbull View Post
    "it" being the NDAA?

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...sident-hr-1540

    When he signed it he said that he didn't like it and wouldn't utilize parts of it against US citizens.


    The fact of the matter that people like to neglect is that the NDAA is part of the defense budget. It's made by Congress (not the POTUS) and had he NOT signed it then the DoD (and armed forces) wouldn't have gotten their funding for the year. And tell me, how effective at defending is a Department of Defense with no money?


    Edit: because it's long and people will bitch about it being too long so they won't read

    1) The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

    2) I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

    3) Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

    the relevant to my comment bits
    So your argument is that he had to pass the NDAA with it's famous line to allow indefinite detention of US citizens, because the bill had other things in it. Well, first of all, that's not a good excuse. You simply do not do certain things, and this is one of them. You wouldn't remove the right to vote of women just because it's in a bill that extends the debt ceiling.

    Second, the congress was willing to remove the infamous line from the bill, but Obama's administration wanted to retain it.

    Third, a Federal Judge (appointed by Obama) decided to permanently block the indefinite detention line of the legislation. This should be an optimal situation for Obama if he really doesn't like the law. What did he do? He fucking sent the DoJ after the judge and her decision.

    Obama wants to have the power to indefinitely detain, or assassinate, anyone who he percieves to be a threat to the nation without due process. Fucking hell most of you Liberals would have your head explode of anger if a Republican was responsible.

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    That's a very fair critique of the situation. And I don't think you are a closed minded idiot, whatsoever. That being said, focusing on one part of one item as an overall critique of a President's legacy, you would have to admit, is very short sighted.
    You don't think the Internment Camps FDR was responsible for shadow his legacy? He was a vile racist, with no respect for the rules that limited his authority.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-09-26 at 05:54 PM.

  10. #9050
    Scarab Lord cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    So your argument is that he had to pass the NDAA with it's famous line to allow indefinite detention of US citizens, because the bill had other things in it. Well, first of all, that's not a good excuse. You simply do not do certain things, and this is one of them. You wouldn't remove the right to vote of women just because it's in a bill that extends the debt ceiling.

    Second, the congress was willing to remove the infamous line from the bill, but Obama's administration wanted to retain it.

    Third, a Federal Judge (appointed by Obama) decided to permanently block the indefinite detention line of the legislation. This should be an optimal situation for Obama if he really doesn't like the law. What did he do? He fucking sent the DoJ after the judge and her decision.
    You seem so smart in your other posts/comments/criticisms. I think you may have to just admit that when it comes to this particular topic, the NDAA, you might be blinded to reasoning. I have the same problem with animal rights.

    (I can explain in detail if you want)
    The less you know, the more you believe.


    Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
    I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.

  11. #9051
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    You seem so smart in your other posts/comments/criticisms. I think you may have to just admit that when it comes to this particular topic, the NDAA, you might be blinded to reasoning. I have the same problem with animal rights.

    (I can explain in detail if you want)
    How am I the one who is blinded? You're the one who is defending him on things that Liberals used to lynch (figuratively) Republicans for. You're seriously defending Obama's NDAA decision?

    Let's see what Obama has also done with absolute disregard to your constitutional rights to due process. Well, the use of warrantless wiretapping and spying on U.S. citizens has surged enormously since Bush left office. The War on Drugs has expanded as well and they are using The Patriot Act to crack down on people for drug use.

  12. #9052
    The Insane smrund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    15,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    Rights don't correct wrongs. I'm sorry, I don't think a man who has O.K.ed a bill restriciting the civil liberties of his citizens can be viewed as one of the "greatest presidents of our time".
    No, but wrongs don't negate rights either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
    Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  13. #9053
    Scarab Lord cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    How am I the one who is blinded? You're the one who is defending him on things that Liberals used to lynch (figuratively) Republicans for. You're seriously defending Obama's NDAA decision?
    I knew I should have phrased that better. In this one case, I wasn't making fun of you or really criticizing you - I was trying to relate to the situation. My blind spot issue is people who care about animal rights (so you know my favorite group is PETA ). Any time someone brings up that topic, I ignore whatever "animal issue" it's about and immediately ask about homeless children. No good reason for it. I'm sure animal rights people really care about dolphins or pigeons or whatever. I can't hear anything they say, though, because all I can think of is why isn't all this energy going towards helping homeless kids.

    The point I was trying to make was that the NDAA might be your "animal rights" issue - and no matter what great things Obama has done (and there are a lot of great things he's already done for this country) all you see is the human rights violation. And any argument explaining it or trying to justify it (and there are good ones) falls on deaf ears to you.

    Again, just trying to have a conversation about this, not trying to attack or anything, because I know it sounds like I am.
    The less you know, the more you believe.


    Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
    I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.

  14. #9054
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I knew I should have phrased that better. In this one case, I wasn't making fun of you or really criticizing you - I was trying to relate to the situation. My blind spot issue is people who care about animal rights (so you know my favorite group is PETA ). Any time someone brings up that topic, I ignore whatever "animal issue" it's about and immediately ask about homeless children. No good reason for it. I'm sure animal rights people really care about dolphins or pigeons or whatever. I can't hear anything they say, though, because all I can think of is why isn't all this energy going towards helping homeless kids.

    The point I was trying to make was that the NDAA might be your "animal rights" issue - and no matter what great things Obama has done (and there are a lot of great things he's already done for this country) all you see is the human rights violation. And any argument explaining it or trying to justify it (and there are good ones) falls on deaf ears to you.

    Again, just trying to have a conversation about this, not trying to attack or anything, because I know it sounds like I am.
    Due process and the judicial system is pervasive in our entire society. If the judicial system doesn't work, the it doesn't matter what rights you have on paper, none of them can be protected.

    In other words, an infringement upon due process, is an infringement upon all other rights as well.

    Having the legal right to make people disappear for an indefinite amount of time without going through a judge is something typical of totalitarian states, not western democracies.

    Also, from The Atlantic:

    Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue.

    Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.

    Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-09-26 at 07:42 PM.

  15. #9055
    Scarab Lord cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Due process and the judicial system is pervasive in our entire society. If the judicial system doesn't work, the it doesn't matter what rights you have on paper, none of them can be protected.

    In other words, an infringement upon due process, is an infringement upon all other rights as well.

    Having the legal right to make people disappear for an indefinite amount of time without going through a judge is something typical of totalitarian states, not western democracies,

    Alrighty then, you've pretty much classified yourself in this discussion. Keep in mind no rule is absolute - except that rule.

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-26 at 08:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    You don't think the Internment Camps FDR was responsible for shadow his legacy? He was a vile racist, with no respect for the rules that limited his authority.
    None whatsoever. And no, he wasn't.
    Last edited by cubby; 2012-09-26 at 08:13 PM.
    The less you know, the more you believe.


    Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
    I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.

  16. #9056
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    None whatsoever. And no, he wasn't.
    Forcing American citizens to concentration camps doesn't shadow FDR's legacy? Rofl.

  17. #9057
    Scarab Lord cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Forcing American citizens to concentration camps doesn't shadow FDR's legacy? Rofl.
    No, it doesn't. Not with most people. When you posted it I had to remember that it happened (and I'm a student of WWII history). It was a regrettable event, of course, but FDR did a couple of other things that people pay more attention to.

    (and I'm not excusing the internment camps, btw)
    The less you know, the more you believe.


    Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
    I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.

  18. #9058
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    No, it doesn't. Not with most people. When you posted it I had to remember that it happened (and I'm a student of WWII history). It was a regrettable event, of course, but FDR did a couple of other things that people pay more attention to.

    (and I'm not excusing the internment camps, btw)
    Some things are simply unforgivable. Takes a special kind of psychopath to send your own citizens to concentration camps.

  19. #9059
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Some things are simply unforgivable. Takes a special kind of psychopath to send your own citizens to concentration camps.
    Internment camps. They're a black mark to be sure but don't compare them to what the third reich was up to thank you very much.
    Last edited by Wells; 2012-09-26 at 09:33 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  20. #9060
    Scarab Lord cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    4,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Some things are simply unforgivable. Takes a special kind of psychopath to send your own citizens to concentration camps.
    This is forgivable - for some reason you can't. Were you perhaps hit by this personally? I don't mean to prod, but the internment camps weren't some awful experience where people died. There were, as Wells so aptly put it, a black mark on our nation's history, but they weren't concentration camps, AT ALL.
    The less you know, the more you believe.


    Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
    I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •