| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Kuros,
I agree.
It is also why I have come to hate politics. I bet if you were to ask Obama before he became President that same question, he would whole-heartedly agree. I would really like to hear an honest answer of why he signed this legislation - actually I don't - it would probably end any idealism still hiding inside me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| I would really like to hear an honest answer of why he signed this legislation. |
Seems pretty straightforward to me... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| I would really like to hear an honest answer of why he signed this legislation. |
I'd like to hear why when the bill was in the Senate he threatened to veto it unless the proposed amendment that it would not apply to US citizens was removed, and then upon signing the bill without the amendment, he made a singing statement that his admin would not apply it to Americans. So is he schizophrenic or just setting us up for the next administration? (Unless, of course, it is Ron Paul - he'd seek to repeal that horrible, unconstitutional law.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
When Obama signed the thing he issued a signing statement saying he would not enforce that section. That's something. (Enough for the next 5 years, but who knows after that?)
The frightening thing is that a majority in Congress passed it.
The reasoning behind it is coming from the jihadist right wing who want to empower the military domestically. The sad thing is that enough Democrats were craven enough to go along with it.
The real problem, in my opinion, is that there is not enough public outcry against this sort of thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Our country is broke and does not have the money to subsidize countries like Korea anymore nor do we need to |
This is wrong.
The country is not broke. It is the government that is broke, thanks to thirty years of tax cut after tax cut at a time of rising expenses and wars.
People should really be careful not to confuse the government with the country as a country. Think of the French government before the Revolution. The country had plenty of money, but the laws were such that neither the Church nor the aristocrats had to pay taxes. It should sound familiar.
I would also disagree with your second contention. In my opinion, countries with similar values and similar strategic interests are better off cooperating in collective security arrangements. Obviously, some judgement needs to come into play. We can't get involved in every situation, but I would think that the world's 10th largest economy with 50 million people, living next door to the world's 2nd largest economy with 125 million people, both on the door-step of Asia and both extremely important trade partners as well as democracies, are important and vital enough to ally with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Everything you post about Paul on these boards is either about the racist newsletter or an obviously fallacious argument. Have you ever heard of a "guilt by association fallacy?" Attacking people who endorse Paul does not say anything about Paul himself. I don't know him personally, but I am quite confident that he does not want anyone to stone anyone else.
In other words, nobody cares what "Ron Paul's friends" say. They're not the ones running for president. |
You seem really politically naive.
When people get elected, they pay off their supporters in one way or another. As they say, 'You dance with the guy who brung you'.
It's entertaining (and rather sad) to watch RP supporters twist themselves into pretzels trying to defend ignoring your candidate's printed positions on race, gays, etc.
But if it weren't his bigotry, it would be one of any number of other issues that I would oppose him on...foreign policy, anti-Civil Rights Bill, abortion, relationship between the national government and the states... I rather like the 20th Century in terms of the progress we made in building a better America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
When Obama signed the thing he issued a signing statement saying he would not enforce that section. That's something. (Enough for the next 5 years, but who knows after that?)
The frightening thing is that a majority in Congress passed it.
The reasoning behind it is coming from the jihadist right wing who want to empower the military domestically. The sad thing is that enough Democrats were craven enough to go along with it.
The real problem, in my opinion, is that there is not enough public outcry against this sort of thing. |
Wow, that's REALLY close to criticizing something that Obama has done. I'm proud of you, Ya-ta! I'll even reciprocate and say that I wish Ron Paul's policy on abortion was to make it 100% legal nationally, rather than making it a state-by-state issue... which is still far better than the national ban the rest of the Republicans would go for.
Actually, shouldn't "the frightening thing" be that the person who can now detain Americans forever for any reason is the person who made sure the provision for that was included? And on a more practical note... will anyone ever actually know if he does begin detaining Americans? I get the impression they won't be entitled to a phone call and a lawyer... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The frightening thing is that a majority in Congress passed it. |
If a simple majority is frightening, what do you call the overwhelming majority (93-7 in the Senate) who passed it?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
