Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The Coach on March 01, 2008, 08:38:02 AM
-
Barack Obama displayed his bizarre views on foreign and domestic policy during Tuesday night’s Democrat presidential debate but nobody in the media seemed to notice. This is a candidate who is pitifully ignorant on some of the major issues facing our nation.
This is a strange presidential campaign, and the coverage is even stranger. Under media pressure, John McCain has apologized because radio talk-show host Bill Cunningham opened a McCain rally by noting that Barack Obama’s full name is Barack Hussein Obama. The media were upset not only because he went after Obama, but because Cunningham’s hilarious remarks on liberal media bias were so on target.
But speaking of names, will anyone in the major media talk about the mysterious “Frank.” He’s Obama’s childhood mentor in his book, Dreams From My Father.We discovered he’s Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member and anti-American revolutionary. Isn’t this as newsworthy as the African garb Obama wore on a foreign trip? Isn’t what’s in Obama’s head as important as the clothes he wears?
The American people have been terribly served by the media during this campaign, and the latest bad performance was turned in by those commenting on Tuesday night’s debate on MSNBC. They failed to note that Obama made two serious gaffes. First, Obama showed ignorance of what led to the crisis in Kosovo, where a U.S.-Russian confrontation is now playing out, and he seemed to advocate some kind of U.S. military response through NATO. If a President Obama carried through on such a threat, it would be a foreign policy mistake of monumental proportions. It could lead to a war with Russia in the current circumstances.
Second, Obama didn’t seem to understand that in the case of the disabled woman, Terri Schiavo, the issue was giving her the same kind of due process rights that are guaranteed to death row killers. We now know where Obama really stands, and it is not a pretty picture.
NBC’s Tim Russert has done a fairly good job during the debates and he had some good questions of the candidates on Tuesday night. One was when he asked Obama what he would do if Russia helped Serbia militarily take control of Kosovo, which is under United Nations and NATO occupation and recently declared its independence.
Obama had a long answer: “Well, I think that we work with the international community that has also recognized Kosovo, and state that that’s unacceptable. But, fortunately, we have a strong international structure anchored in NATO to deal with this issue. We don’t have to work in isolation. And this is an area where I think that the Clinton administration deserves a lot of credit, is, you know, the way in which they put together a coalition that has functioned. It has not been perfect, but it saved lives. And we created a situation in which not only Kosovo, but other parts of the former Yugoslavia at least have the potential to over time build democracies and enter into the broader European community. But, you know, be very clear: We have recognized the country of Kosovo as an independent, sovereign nation, as has Great Britain and many other countries in the region. And I think that that carries with it, then, certain obligations to ensure that they are not invaded.”
What does he mean by that? How does he propose that the U.S. and NATO stop an invasion of Kosovo by Serbia? The fact is that, despite its declaration of independence, Kosovo is still recognized by many nations as a province of Serbia. The “nation” of Kosovo is not recognized as such by the UN, and Russia and China have vowed to oppose its membership in the world body. What’s more, as former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton points out, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 reaffirmed Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo. This was agreed to by the U.S. So a pledge by the U.S. to protect Kosovo from an “invasion” would be viewed as further meddling in a civil war.
His comments about the Clinton Administration and Kosovo are apparently a reference to Clinton’s NATO war against Serbia over who was going to control the province. The war was illegal and unconstitutional. Clinton launched it without Congressional approval and continued it when Congress failed to authorize it after the fact. Yet Obama was defending Clinton’s actions there. His statements about this foreign policy problem were reckless and ignorant.
The problem for the Republicans is that Senator John McCain voted for the war against Serbia and has now, like Hillary and Obama, expressed support for Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
On the Schiavo case, Obama said the following: “Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision-making process of the families. It wasn’t something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better. And so that’s an example I think of where inaction...”
Russert explained, “This is the young woman with the feeding tube... and the family disagreed as to whether it should be removed or not.”
Obama replied, “And I think that’s an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.”
Once again, Obama demonstrated his ignorance of the true facts. Congress decided to “interject itself” into the situation because the family was divided over caring for the brain-damaged woman and there had been no federal review of the facts in the case. All that Congress did was authorize a federal judge to examine the situation. This is guaranteed to all federal inmates on death row so they are not executed without complete respect for their due process rights. Isn’t a disabled woman entitled to similar rights? Many forget that Schiavo’s parents and siblings only wanted the right to keep her alive and take care of her. It was her estranged husband who wanted her dead. What harm would have been caused by letting her live?
Obama’s statement that he wanted Congress to stay out of this matter and that he personally should have “stopped” congressional action reflects a callous disregard for the rights of disabled people. And yet he claimed to be speaking during the debate as someone with the experience of “a constitutional law professor.” In fact, Congress should have done more; Schiavo was eventually starved to death by her estranged husband after a federal judge refused to save her life. If the constitution doesn’t protect the rights of the most innocent and defenseless among us, what good is it? What constitution did Obama study in law school? Where did he get his ideas about human worth and dignity?
During a previous debate, on this very subject, McCain sounded like Obama, saying that “In retrospect, we should have taken some more time, looked at it more carefully, and probably we acted too hastily.” In effect, McCain was repudiating the effort to save Terri’s life.
So once again we have a major issue facing the country and yet there is really no difference between Obama and McCain.
It looks, therefore, like it’s going to be a very boring campaign. We all need that pillow Hillary says the media are giving Obama. We need to see more, not less, of people like Bill Cunningham, even though McCain has now fed him to the sharks. At least Cunningham had the guts to utter Obama’s full name.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1386767><p><strong>Media
-
No one is going to read this novel! Hope this helps!! ;)
-
Bush announced today what many of us believed all along... he's pulling most combat troops by october 2008 to nullify the issue for elections.
As much as you might hate obama, everyone is going to vote based upon their pocketbook this time.
bush led us to this recession.
Mccain promised to keep the bush economy plan in place.
enough said. Repubs will not win. They tied their cart to a losing horse.
-
i love how you never hear about Obama's affiliation with a black muslim "church" and the fact that Louis Farrakhan supports him. ::)
-
Dems could run Craig Titus on the ticket and win.
Everyone is going to be so broke by Nov that it's not funny.
McCain's pledge to keep the bush tax cuts in place for the wealthy and oil companies will sink him.
-
Bush announced today what many of us believed all along... he's pulling most combat troops by october 2008 to nullify the issue for elections.
As much as you might hate obama, everyone is going to vote based upon their pocketbook this time.
bush led us to this recession.
Mccain promised to keep the bush economy plan in place.
enough said. Repubs will not win. They tied their cart to a losing horse.
Well, we'll see if the Repubs win or not.....if they don't it shows the sheer ignorance of the American people and the bias on how the liberal media can persuade nothing into something just based on charisma and the ability to give a speech with no substance or content. In other words, people can be baffled with bullshit, Clinton proved that in 92' then again in his second term and Obama just might pull it off as well.
-
Dems could run Craig Titus on the ticket and win.
Everyone is going to be so broke by Nov that it's not funny.
McCain's pledge to keep the bush tax cuts in place for the wealthy and oil companies will sink him.
I disagree, I think people would rather see us protected. Clinton or Obama cannot and will not do that.
-
By the way.......Lori and I are OFFICIALLY campaingning for McCain. We will spend alot of our time today making calls on his behalf.
-
240 is spot on
CLinton= great economy and plenty of jobs
Bush= recession and rampant joblessness
our country will experience another depression if another Mccain plans to follow in the current economy plan
another republican will ruin this country :-\
-
Well, we'll see if the Repubs win or not.....if they don't it shows the sheer ignorance of the American people and the bias on how the liberal media can persuade nothing into something just based on charisma and the ability to give a speech with no substance or content. In other words, people can be baffled with bullshit, Clinton proved that in 92' then again in his second term and Obama just might pull it off as well.
Joe,
Bush entered the white house and the deficit was 4.5 tril.
It is 9 tril today.
Bush borrowed more than every other president in 100 years, combined.
And he did it while cutting taxes on the rich.
it was incredibly naive, and it's biting us now and will continue to get worse.
Remember that 1 month ago, half the repub nominees (mccain included) told us the economy was fine. he's either lying or dangerously uninformed. Every analyst in america has been saying we're headed for trouble. Mccain thinks everything is great.
-
I disagree, I think people would rather see us protected. Clinton or Obama cannot and will not do that.
Ignorance, joe. I love ya but you're being ignorant of facts here.
Obama said troops will be in iraq forever, based upon what the generals demand.
Obama said to bomb pakistan, africa, afghanistan, and finally get osama.
Obama is more determined to catch bin laden than mccain is. Obama will keep course in iraq. bush himself announced major troop removal in oct 2008.
Your ONLY point now - since the economy is fuct and mccain will keep it the same - is that Obama is soft on foreign policy. Funny... obama and bush are on the same side with bombing pakistan... mccain said we shouldn't. is mccain soft on islamist terror in pakistan and pashtun region? sure looks like it!
-
240 is spot on
CLinton= great economy and plenty of jobs
Bush= recession and rampant joblessness
our country will experience another depression if another Mccain plans to follow in the current economy plan
another republican will ruin this country :-\
Bullshit.....toward the last 1 1/2-2 years of Clintons term, we started going into a deep recession that Bush inherited and subsequently had the biggest turnaround in 20 + years. Clinton got lucky with his economy in the beginning because of the dot com boom, also don't forget Clinton had a Republican congress.
-
By the way.......Lori and I are OFFICIALLY campaingning for McCain. We will spend alot of our time today making calls on his behalf.
that's weird, your heros Rush and Hannity don't like him.
-
I disagree, I think people would rather see us protected. Clinton or Obama cannot and will not do that.
WHAT!!!!!!!!
"Im real safe but have no $$ for retirement and Im losing my house", do you really think that people are going to say this faced with imminent poverty
you need to take your head out of the sand Joe and see whats going on around you------------
talk about rhetoric, "being safe and combating terror" some of the most overused rhetoric in politics today
-
In other words, people can be baffled with bullshit, Clinton proved that in 92'
ytou voted for clinton in 1992, joe.
you were baffled with his bullshit then. you are being baffled by mccain's bullshit and fearmongering today as well. This is coming form a lifelong republican, joe, as you know I have voted repub in every election until now.
mccain is bush #3. if you like the economy now, and the direction it's heading, by all means, go campaign for him.
-
oh wow, a pro-conservative website
this might as well come from fox news
Barack Obama displayed his bizarre views on foreign and domestic policy during Tuesday night’s Democrat presidential debate but nobody in the media seemed to notice. This is a candidate who is pitifully ignorant on some of the major issues facing our nation.
This is a strange presidential campaign, and the coverage is even stranger. Under media pressure, John McCain has apologized because radio talk-show host Bill Cunningham opened a McCain rally by noting that Barack Obama’s full name is Barack Hussein Obama. The media were upset not only because he went after Obama, but because Cunningham’s hilarious remarks on liberal media bias were so on target.
But speaking of names, will anyone in the major media talk about the mysterious “Frank.” He’s Obama’s childhood mentor in his book, Dreams From My Father.We discovered he’s Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member and anti-American revolutionary. Isn’t this as newsworthy as the African garb Obama wore on a foreign trip? Isn’t what’s in Obama’s head as important as the clothes he wears?
The American people have been terribly served by the media during this campaign, and the latest bad performance was turned in by those commenting on Tuesday night’s debate on MSNBC. They failed to note that Obama made two serious gaffes. First, Obama showed ignorance of what led to the crisis in Kosovo, where a U.S.-Russian confrontation is now playing out, and he seemed to advocate some kind of U.S. military response through NATO. If a President Obama carried through on such a threat, it would be a foreign policy mistake of monumental proportions. It could lead to a war with Russia in the current circumstances.
Second, Obama didn’t seem to understand that in the case of the disabled woman, Terri Schiavo, the issue was giving her the same kind of due process rights that are guaranteed to death row killers. We now know where Obama really stands, and it is not a pretty picture.
NBC’s Tim Russert has done a fairly good job during the debates and he had some good questions of the candidates on Tuesday night. One was when he asked Obama what he would do if Russia helped Serbia militarily take control of Kosovo, which is under United Nations and NATO occupation and recently declared its independence.
Obama had a long answer: “Well, I think that we work with the international community that has also recognized Kosovo, and state that that’s unacceptable. But, fortunately, we have a strong international structure anchored in NATO to deal with this issue. We don’t have to work in isolation. And this is an area where I think that the Clinton administration deserves a lot of credit, is, you know, the way in which they put together a coalition that has functioned. It has not been perfect, but it saved lives. And we created a situation in which not only Kosovo, but other parts of the former Yugoslavia at least have the potential to over time build democracies and enter into the broader European community. But, you know, be very clear: We have recognized the country of Kosovo as an independent, sovereign nation, as has Great Britain and many other countries in the region. And I think that that carries with it, then, certain obligations to ensure that they are not invaded.”
What does he mean by that? How does he propose that the U.S. and NATO stop an invasion of Kosovo by Serbia? The fact is that, despite its declaration of independence, Kosovo is still recognized by many nations as a province of Serbia. The “nation” of Kosovo is not recognized as such by the UN, and Russia and China have vowed to oppose its membership in the world body. What’s more, as former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton points out, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 reaffirmed Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo. This was agreed to by the U.S. So a pledge by the U.S. to protect Kosovo from an “invasion” would be viewed as further meddling in a civil war.
His comments about the Clinton Administration and Kosovo are apparently a reference to Clinton’s NATO war against Serbia over who was going to control the province. The war was illegal and unconstitutional. Clinton launched it without Congressional approval and continued it when Congress failed to authorize it after the fact. Yet Obama was defending Clinton’s actions there. His statements about this foreign policy problem were reckless and ignorant.
The problem for the Republicans is that Senator John McCain voted for the war against Serbia and has now, like Hillary and Obama, expressed support for Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
On the Schiavo case, Obama said the following: “Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision-making process of the families. It wasn’t something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better. And so that’s an example I think of where inaction...”
Russert explained, “This is the young woman with the feeding tube... and the family disagreed as to whether it should be removed or not.”
Obama replied, “And I think that’s an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.”
Once again, Obama demonstrated his ignorance of the true facts. Congress decided to “interject itself” into the situation because the family was divided over caring for the brain-damaged woman and there had been no federal review of the facts in the case. All that Congress did was authorize a federal judge to examine the situation. This is guaranteed to all federal inmates on death row so they are not executed without complete respect for their due process rights. Isn’t a disabled woman entitled to similar rights? Many forget that Schiavo’s parents and siblings only wanted the right to keep her alive and take care of her. It was her estranged husband who wanted her dead. What harm would have been caused by letting her live?
Obama’s statement that he wanted Congress to stay out of this matter and that he personally should have “stopped” congressional action reflects a callous disregard for the rights of disabled people. And yet he claimed to be speaking during the debate as someone with the experience of “a constitutional law professor.” In fact, Congress should have done more; Schiavo was eventually starved to death by her estranged husband after a federal judge refused to save her life. If the constitution doesn’t protect the rights of the most innocent and defenseless among us, what good is it? What constitution did Obama study in law school? Where did he get his ideas about human worth and dignity?
During a previous debate, on this very subject, McCain sounded like Obama, saying that “In retrospect, we should have taken some more time, looked at it more carefully, and probably we acted too hastily.” In effect, McCain was repudiating the effort to save Terri’s life.
So once again we have a major issue facing the country and yet there is really no difference between Obama and McCain.
It looks, therefore, like it’s going to be a very boring campaign. We all need that pillow Hillary says the media are giving Obama. We need to see more, not less, of people like Bill Cunningham, even though McCain has now fed him to the sharks. At least Cunningham had the guts to utter Obama’s full name.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1386767><p><strong>Media
-
i love how you never hear about Obama's affiliation with a black muslim "church" and the fact that Louis Farrakhan supports him. ::)
I guess you missed the obama-hilary debate in cleveland.
-
By the way.......Lori and I are OFFICIALLY campaingning for McCain. We will spend alot of our time today making calls on his behalf.
McCain is no angel and his apology to Obama shows weakness.
I could care less about these two. This year I'm voting for Scott Alexander... :D
-
i love how you never hear about Obama's affiliation with a black muslim "church" and the fact that Louis Farrakhan supports him. ::)
You have to listen to what Farrakahan believes in, not the inflammatory bits and pieces that are taken out of context.
Are all muslims terrorists that hate us for our freedom?
What politician is not affiliated with a religious group?
Sandra
-
i love how you never hear about Obama's affiliation with a black muslim "church" and the fact that Louis Farrakhan supports him. ::)
That's because it has been debunked as an internet rumor. Check out all the top newslines MSNBC, CNN and even Reuters.
and you can't hold somebody to task because somebody else likes them.
It is like lumping Ron in the Titus case because Craiggers and him are friends.
My question is if the 9/11 attacks took years to plan how come nobody has mentioned that is was Clinton's foriegn policy that created this or how Clinton's "experience" never saw any of the signs either?
Did the lack of action on the administrations part after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole embolden Bin Laden to try more daring attacks?
-
(http://runkz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jay_cutler2.jpg)
(http://runkz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jay_cutler2.jpg)
(http://runkz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jay_cutler2.jpg)
(http://runkz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jay_cutler2.jpg)
(http://runkz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jay_cutler2.jpg)
(http://runkz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jay_cutler2.jpg)
(http://runkz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jay_cutler2.jpg)
(http://runkz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jay_cutler2.jpg)
(http://runkz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jay_cutler2.jpg)
(http://runkz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jay_cutler2.jpg)
(http://runkz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jay_cutler2.jpg)
-
You have to listen to what Farrakahan believes in, not the inflammatory bits and pieces that are taken out of context.
Are all muslims terrorists that hate us for our freedom?
What politician is not affiliated with a religious group?
Sandra
What is taken out of context? Are you saying he's NOT a racist and anti-semite?
-
What is taken out of context? Are you saying he's NOT a racist and anti-semite?
you're anti-muslim, same difference "joe local"
-
oh wow, a pro-conservative website
this might as well come from fox news
So the mainstream liberal media is any better? There are million issues and skeletons that Obama has that the liberal media refuses to bring up, then when you finally get the other side, all you can say is "oh wow, a pro-conservative website" like it's a bad thing!
-
mccain is a good man, a war hero, and he'd make a good president.
unfortunately, in order to win the nomination he had to promise to keep the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and for big business.
these tax cuts are causing a recession, plain and simple. we're borrowing from china when we should be taxing. we SHOULD have been taxing during the nice war rich streak, but Bush didn't. Now we're in shit.
Obama is the better choice because he will tax the wealthy and he will help the economy recover. joe, I know you'll pay higher taxes with Obama, and I don't blame you for not wanting him to win as a result. In the LONGER RUN, however, fixing the 9 trillion dollar debt and keeping dollar strong is very much worth us getting our taxes raised for 2 years. Your home and portfolio will be worth squat if this recession leads to a depression.
-
you're anti-muslim, same difference "joe local"
I'm not anti-muslim, I'm anti-terrorist. Farrakan hates all Jews.
-
I'm not anti-muslim, I'm anti-terrorist. Farrakan hates all Jews.
on tues, obama flat out rejected farrakhan's endorsement.
so farrakhan's beliefs have NOTHING to do with obama.
Also Obama has pledged a lot of $ and support to israel - he's very much on their side longterm.
-
I'm not anti-muslim, I'm anti-terrorist. Farrakan hates all Jews.
I'm pretty sure you've said this statement in the past "Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim!"
It's got a pretty anti-muslim vibe to it, my christian friend ;)
-
mccain is a good man, a war hero, and he'd make a good president.
unfortunately, in order to win the nomination he had to promise to keep the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and for big business.
these tax cuts are causing a recession, plain and simple. we're borrowing from china when we should be taxing. we SHOULD have been taxing during the nice war rich streak, but Bush didn't. Now we're in shit.
Obama is the better choice because he will tax the wealthy and he will help the economy recover. joe, I know you'll pay higher taxes with Obama, and I don't blame you for not wanting him to win as a result. In the LONGER RUN, however, fixing the 9 trillion dollar debt and keeping dollar strong is very much worth us getting our taxes raised for 2 years. Your home and portfolio will be worth squat if this recession leads to a depression.
Rob, security of this country is something like 3rd on Obama's agenda........the first obligation as a President is to protect your country. In Obama, you have a guy who refuses to even put his hand on his heart let alone where a lapel pin of the american flag in support. You said you were a Republican, being a republican Rob, doesn't that rub you the wrong way?? You know as well as I do the majority of Liberals really dislike america, I truly fell Obama falls into that catagory.
-
Bullshit.....toward the last 1 1/2-2 years of Clintons term, we started going into a deep recession that Bush inherited and subsequently had the biggest turnaround in 20 + years. Clinton got lucky with his economy in the beginning because of the dot com boom, also don't forget Clinton had a Republican congress.
Bush inherited a 4.5 trillion debt.
The debt will be close to 10 tril when he leaves office.
He could have alleviated the debt by taxing when things were good - he chose not to. He let the rich get richer. Instead he CUT taxes while things were nice. This was an unprecedented and terrible move - we were actually borrowing a 500B a year from China to avoid taxing the rich. Very short term thinking there.
he let the rich get richer, and borrowed on US land to do it.
That wasn't clinton's fault - most everyone in america with any understanding of economies shrieked at it.
You can blame clinton for everything, but Bush had 6 years of control of white house and congress, and he chose to borrow. CLinton didn't do that, bush did. Please tell me what is wrong in my statement above.
-
I'm pretty sure you've said this statement in the past "Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim!"
It's got a pretty anti-muslim vibe to it, my christian friend ;)
Am I wrong?
-
Am I wrong?
Ever hear of the IRA? Not many Muslims ever ran around with them.
It conflicted with the Catholic believes just a tad.
-
I'm not anti-muslim, I'm anti-terrorist. Farrakan hates all Jews.
So you're "anti-terrorist" huh? Who's the only country to EVER be found guilty of international terrorism in the World Court, Joe?
I'll give you a hint...it wasn't Isreal, Eygypt, Saudi Arabia or Russia...Still don't know?
Maybe it's time to turn off Fox news and read a book. :o
The sad part is that his vote counts the same as mine :-[
-
Am I wrong?
timothy mcveigh was a terrorist. he wasn't arab.
-
Am I wrong?
Joe - you're almost always wrong.
As other have already pointed out the IRA, ETA, McVeigh (homegrown and Christian too).
How about Eric Rudolph (another good Christian) or the Uni-Bomber
-
how about the white supervisor at the FAA?
You know, after all those planes' transponders magically stopped working and all our fighter jets were magically sent out to sea to do laps. The supervisor destroyed the tapes so we could never know what was said coordinating all of that. You know, the fighter pilots flying 1875 mph dead-on to the hijacked planes, only to be told to run laps at 400 mph in the atlantic until everything had hit?
That man admitted he destroyed the tapes because 'it didn't show our best performance'.
It could have easily shown if there was indeed a coordinated effort by a few people to sabotage US fighter jet response time on 911. maybe that's why the man threw it away. Weird that the white-house controlled 911 commission didn't press him on it huh?
-
240 - you're entertaining and post good info but why do you always have to bring up 911 CT theories. There are plenty of example of convicted non-muslim terrorists without having to jump off the deep end
-
sorry, and IMO it's not really the deep end there.
I'm not talking 911 CTs.
I'm asking why one guy was able to destroy crucial evidence in the murder of 3000 and wasn't even charged with tampering. He's supervising the hub, where all decisions were made that day (many of which violated protocol) and he skates after destroying proof which would explain everything.
-
sorry, and IMO it's not really the deep end there.
I'm not talking 911 CTs.
I'm asking why one guy was able to destroy crucial evidence in the murder of 3000 and wasn't even charged with tampering. He's supervising the hub, where all decisions were made that day (many of which violated protocol) and he skates after destroying proof which would explain everything.
was he convicted of a terrorist related offense?
convicted of anything?
-
It certainly does appear that the media favors Obama to Hillary.
-
because obama beats bush errr mccain by a landslide.
Not according to latest Quinnipiac poll.
-
timothy mcveigh was a terrorist. he wasn't arab.
Not exactly a terrorist organization Rob.
-
did you RUN AWAY again joeloco ?
wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !
No, I work.......how about you?
-
Not exactly a terrorist organization Rob.
but still a terrorist
Eric Rudolph was most definitely a terrorist and given support by other rabid Christians
The point being that not ALL terrorists are Muslim
This statement was attributed to you but I didn't see you actually make this statement
Why don't you clarify your position
-
Joe - you're almost always wrong.
As other have already pointed out the IRA, ETA, McVeigh (homegrown and Christian too).
How about Eric Rudolph (another good Christian) or the Uni-Bomber
To the best of my knowledge, they don't wake up every day chanting "death to america" and again, Eric Rudolph wasn't a terrorist ORGANIZATION. Mc Veigh, Rudolph all individuals with there own agenda who pretty much acted either alone or with a couple of others.
-
i'll assume selling kiddie porn.
take your ball and go home.....again and again and again and again.
you're an attention whore at it's lowest.
What are you like 12? Is it possible for to carry on a debate without name calling. I understand the majority of this board is liberal (as most of the posts in this thread indicate) but at least the other can speak without name calling (Straw man and Rob specifically).
-
Just for you Joe: All about George ;)
Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.
Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.
In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.
Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)
Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleezza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).
Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.
Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.
First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.
First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).
All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.
Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.
Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
And that is not even close to a complete list. Vacation in New Orleans if you want to see more of his administration's beauty.
-
To the best of my knowledge, they don't wake up every day chanting "death to america" and again, Eric Rudolph wasn't a terrorist ORGANIZATION. Mc Veigh, Rudolph all individuals with there own agenda who pretty much acted either alone or with a couple of others.
You've already been given plenty of examples of non-muslim groups who are terrorist.
Individuals such as McVeigh, Rudolph, etc... are committing acts of terrorism against US targets, US citizens, and US values. It doesn't matter one bit whether they are chanting death to America or not.
Why don't you clarify your exact belief.
-
The point being that not ALL terrorists are Muslim
I will retract that and I kinda knew this would be brought up when I said it. But the fact remains, it's the musslim terrorists that are the main threat to our country and the world for that matter.......they have made that very clear.
-
It doesn't matter one bit whether they are chanting death to America or not.
Why don't you clarify your exact belief.
You don't think it matters that you have thousands of Musslim terrorists that live for the sole reason to destroy us? What are you not clear on?
-
Hey, you think I can log off for awhile and train my next client....or will I be accused of running away :P?
-
WRONG FORUM, there's a beauty pageant happening.
-
You don't think it matters that you have thousands of Musslim terrorists that live for the sole reason to destroy us? What are you not clear on?
When did I ever say it didn't matter?
I, and others here have just given you multiple of examples that not all terrorist (groups or otherwise) are muslim.
-
most likely joeloco will pass on this post.
Yes, I will because it has no relevance to this thread. But if it makes you feel better, I will post up somethings about Clinton including the 70 + people that mysteriously died during his administration.
-
Yes, I will because it has no relevance to this thread. But if it makes you feel better, I will post up somethings about Clinton including the 70 + people that mysteriously died during his administration.
why are you back?
and when are you leaving for good for the 4 th time, loser?
-
WRONG FORUM, there's a beauty pageant happening.
LOL
-
Just for you Joe: All about George ;)
Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.
Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.
In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.
Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)
Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleezza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).
Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.
Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.
First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.
First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).
All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.
Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.
Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
And that is not even close to a complete list. Vacation in New Orleans if you want to see more of his administration's beauty.
Everything you have listed (despite some inaccuracies) does not mean that you cannot thrive in America.
The finger of blame is still strong and gives many people errant reason to quit striving and exist in mediocrity.
-
WRONG FORUM, there's a beauty pageant happening.
LMAO hahahahahaha!!
-
why are you back?
and when are you leaving for good for the 4 th time, loser?
Ok, before I go I have to repond to this clown. Dude you have some balls to come back on here after the shit you gave me after my show........THEN you got exposed by someone posting your pic. When I saw your pic I couldn't figure out who was more delutional...you or benz, but after seeing your pic and getting totally 100% owned by Jason Pegg you are clearly the more delusional one.
Hey, shoot me a PM and I'll give you my info..........I can work wonders with fat people...hahahahahahaha!!
-
In Obama, you have a guy who refuses to even put his hand on his heart let alone where a lapel pin of the american flag in support.
Glad to see you are getting informed on politics through chain emails...hahaha
-
mccain is a good man, a war hero, and he'd make a good president.
unfortunately, in order to win the nomination he had to promise to keep the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and for big business.
these tax cuts are causing a recession, plain and simple. we're borrowing from china when we should be taxing. we SHOULD have been taxing during the nice war rich streak, but Bush didn't. Now we're in shit.
Obama is the better choice because he will tax the wealthy and he will help the economy recover. joe, I know you'll pay higher taxes with Obama, and I don't blame you for not wanting him to win as a result. In the LONGER RUN, however, fixing the 9 trillion dollar debt and keeping dollar strong is very much worth us getting our taxes raised for 2 years. Your home and portfolio will be worth squat if this recession leads to a depression.
I respect your many opinions on here 240, but this country needs a balance. For all of Obamas "we can hope" rhetoric, it cannot help disguise the fact that he is an old-school Democrat to the core. Lots of taxes and lots of nice big government programs, and expensive attempt at quasi-universal health care and on and on. Business will stagnate here if our corporate tax rate is 40%, highest in the industrialized world. I agree that we should tax instead of borrow, especially when the economy was hot for the last few years (fake wealth, but taxable wealth nonetheless). Barack is far-left, almost LBJ like with his government programs. That's all nice and great but we can't afford them. We cannot afford the wars, or the 50 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities from all those sweet entitlement programs from the 60's (medicare/medicade). Until we take care of those and our debt and balancing the budget, we should not even be talking about spending money on anything. Because someday in the future our debt will be unpayable and those countries that took our IOU's will see that we are broke and tank our credit rating and up our govts interest payments. Which actually would be OUR interest payments because OUR tax money is the govts collateral. We need someone who will stop pandering, spending and over promising in the short term to get elected. But alas, we Americans aren't the forward looking because the future might be a scary one.
-
Not exactly a terrorist organization Rob.
he and his buddy (and maybe others - there was a grou pf them which met at his hotel who were never identified)..... they blew up a building and killed 168 Americans.
A group of men who killed hundreds of Americans - you don't consider them a terrorist organization?
Um, sounds like YOU are the one who's soft on terror.
-
I respect your many opinions on here 240, but this country needs a balance. For all of Obamas "we can hope" rhetoric, it cannot help disguise the fact that he is an old-school Democrat to the core. Lots of taxes and lots of nice big government programs, and expensive attempt at quasi-universal health care and on and on. Business will stagnate here if our corporate tax rate is 40%, highest in the industrialized world. I agree that we should tax instead of borrow, especially when the economy was hot for the last few years (fake wealth, but taxable wealth nonetheless). Barack is far-left, almost LBJ like with his government programs. That's all nice and great but we can't afford them. We cannot afford the wars, or the 50 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities from all those sweet entitlement programs from the 60's (medicare/medicade). Until we take care of those and our debt and balancing the budget, we should not even be talking about spending money on anything. Because someday in the future our debt will be unpayable and those countries that took our IOU's will see that we are broke and tank our credit rating and up our govts interest payments. Which actually would be OUR interest payments because OUR tax money is the govts collateral. We need someone who will stop pandering, spending and over promising in the short term to get elected. But alas, we Americans aren't the forward looking because the future might be a scary one.
he promises to borrow less form china, and tax the rich.
we CANNOT keep borrowing this much.
Bush was okay with it, and so is mccain. obama is not. That's pretty much the most important issue IMO. Mccain is better on some issues, but this is the most important.
-
he promises to borrow less form china, and tax the rich.
we CANNOT keep borrowing this much.
Bush was okay with it, and so is mccain. obama is not. That's pretty much the most important issue IMO. Mccain is better on some issues, but this is the most important.
McCain painted himself into a corner with the "no tax pledge" or whatever. He voted against the tax cuts because they did not include spending cuts. Even with the tax cuts the US govts tax revenue actually went up only to be completely eclipsed by the drunken spending orgy on capitol hill, add to that the 2 wars with no war tax and there you have it.
Also, who cares if he is going to tax the "rich" the rich already pay the overwhelming share of the taxes here. Top 1% = 30% and the top 10% = 90%, how much more can you tax them? And it doesn't matter what ratio he borrows and taxes etc, he still plans more worthless programs with the almost automatic price tag increase that will be heaped upon the 10 trillion dollar debt and 50 trillion in unfunded liabilities. It's still stupid and will lead to the same place. I understand what you are saying, but it still makes no sense to me.
-
how much more can you tax them
Wealthy people haven't been taxed heavily for the last 7 years. Quite the opposite.
Bush could have taxed everyone when the economy was awesome, and we'd be balanced today. This is normal procedure, so you don't have to tax during a recession.
Whoever comes into office next will have to tax during a recession because bush didn't tax during good times.
-
Republican:
An evil, self-centered, homophobic, criminal, greedy, tyrannical, un-educated, red state, dumb-ass, NASCAR-watching, backward-ass, christian, redneck, hypocritical fear-monger that opposes abortion, stem-cell research, gay rights, evolution, and basic human logic, while cheering loudly over war of all kinds, thriving on torture, stripping populations of civil rights, practicing closeted gay sex with adolescents, and making policy dicisions based solely on profit and and greed and wrapping it all in a cloak of "morality" and "family values".
I hate republicans PS:MELTDOWN
-
Republican:
An evil, self-centered, homophobic, criminal, greedy, tyrannical, un-educated, red state, dumb-ass, NASCAR-watching, backward-ass, christian, redneck, hypocritical fear-monger that opposes abortion, stem-cell research, gay rights, evolution, and basic human logic, while cheering loudly over war of all kinds, thriving on torture, stripping populations of civil rights, practicing closeted gay sex with adolescents, and making policy dicisions based solely on profit and and greed and wrapping it all in a cloak of "morality" and "family values".
I hate republicans PS:MELTDOWN
What...no blow jobs in the oval office???
-
But not ALL of the truth...maybe just that which suits you?
-
does it madden you to read the truth ?
GOP = Gay Ol' Party
No, not at all. I think both parties have great stands anbd issues.
I rarely get mad. I am assuming you are much younger than me. In my youth, I was an angry young man.
But with more world experience as I get older, one mellows and sees things with equanimity.
GOP=Gay Old Party?
Well, both parties likely have plenty of puffers.
-
240 is spot on
CLinton= great economy and plenty of jobs
Bush= recession and rampant joblessness
our country will experience another depression if another Mccain plans to follow in the current economy plan
another republican will ruin this country :-\
Obama is a bit of a lightweight. But he's got more economic credibility than McCain.
Had Obama been up against Rudy, he'd been toast. Rudy made clean house in NY.
But evidently the Republicans wanted to hand the election to Obama. >:(
-
Obama is a bit of a lightweight. But he's got more economic credibility than McCain.
Had Obama been up against Rudy, he'd been toast. Rudy made clean house in NY.
But evidently the Republicans wanted to hand the election to Obama. >:(
Always a pleasure Northman: Du kommer in och ut som en spion.
-
Always a pleasure Northman: Du kommer in och ut som en spion.
Thanks! 8)
-
Thanks! 8)
Doesn't it bother you that I like you just because you're Scandinavian? :o
-
Rob, security of this country is something like 3rd on Obama's agenda........the first obligation as a President is to protect your country.
The first sworn obligation of the President is to uphold the US Constitution.
-
The first sworn obligation of the President is to uphold the US Constitution.
Joe, your response?
-
The first sworn obligation of the President is to uphold the US Constitution.
Not true. The first sworn obligation of the President is to faithfully execute the Office of President:
''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
-
Obama would not even exist, have a shot, a campaign, if it wasn't for Bush.
All his rhetoric, all his snappy lines, etc... Would mean nothing.
-
He'd still be a rock star regardless of Bush. Part of his rapid rise is due to the void of quality Democrat candidates. Just look at the cast that ran for president. How could he not rise when you have people like Biden and Kucinich on a national stage running for president?
-
He'd still be a rock star regardless of Bush. Part of his rapid rise is due to the void of quality Democrat candidates. Just look at the cast that ran for president. How could he not rise when you have people like Biden and Kucinich on a national stage running for president?
I'm with ya there. However, combine that with public's distaste for Bush, a super low approval rating, public opinion that feels Iraq was a mistake, faulty intel, $3+ gas, billions spent, low housing, recession etc..... all of which occurs on Bush's watch and some by Bush's hand.
-
I'm with ya there. However, combine that with public's distaste for Bush, a super low approval rating, public opinion that feels Iraq was a mistake, faulty intel, $3+ gas, billions spent, low housing, recession etc..... all of which occurs on Bush's watch and some by Bush's hand.
imagine if the economy gets worse. $4 gas. housing hitting the shitter worse. DOW dropping more.
If these things happen, and with mccain telling every camera he can that "the bush tax cuts are awesome!" and President Obama will waltz into the white house.
-
Not true. The first sworn obligation of the President is to faithfully execute the Office of President:
''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
I was referring to the Coach's comment about substantive duties of the president. The first substantive duty of the president is to protect/uphold the US constitution. The procedural statement that the president will faithfully execute the Office of president is not a substantive duty.
In other words, I promise to execute the duties of the OFfice and protecting and defending the the US constitution is my duty of the office!
-
imagine if the economy gets worse. $4 gas. housing hitting the shitter worse. DOW dropping more.
LOL, and you call me a fearmonger, I have more important things to worry about like how in the hell do I fix my slice, I was only able to hit 11 fairways on Friday >:(
-
I was referring to the Coach's comment about substantive duties of the president. The first substantive duty of the president is to protect/uphold the US constitution. The procedural statement that the president will faithfully execute the Office of president is not a substantive duty.
In other words, I promise to execute the duties of the OFfice and protecting and defending the the US constitution is my duty of the office!
Now there's an answer I'd expect from a lawyer. :D You both referenced the first sworn duty. The first sworn duty is to faithfully execute the office. The second sworn duty to is preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. I think protecting the American people falls under both of those duties.
-
I'm with ya there. However, combine that with public's distaste for Bush, a super low approval rating, public opinion that feels Iraq was a mistake, faulty intel, $3+ gas, billions spent, low housing, recession etc..... all of which occurs on Bush's watch and some by Bush's hand.
No question all of those are factors too. A dismal economy also contributed to Bush Sr. losing to Clinton. Bush Sr. really wasted all of the political capital he earned from Desert Storm. Dubya has sort of done the same thing.
-
Now there's an answer I'd expect from a lawyer. :D You both referenced the first sworn duty. The first sworn duty is to faithfully execute the office. The second sworn duty to is preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. I think protecting the American people falls under both of those duties.
What are the enumerated duties incumbent on faithfully executing the office of President?
-
What are the enumerated duties incumbent on faithfully executing the office of President?
There are specific duties (which you can read as well as me), but the president has the obligation to protect the entire Constitution, which includes all rights and privileges of the people, which in turn includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
-
There are specific duties (which you can read as well as me), but the president has the obligation to protect the entire Constitution, which includes all rights and privileges of the people, which in turn includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Coach's weak yet spineless interpretation of the constitution where the president's main purpose is to protect/make safe We The People makes mush out the President's primary duty to protect the Constitution and his other role as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. That is a recipe for Fascism.
Defending the US Constitution is a quantifiable qualifier of presidential purpose and power. "Faithfully executing" the office is window dressing. I, and most americans, can point to FISA, Iraq, and torture to show that the president is not defending the US Constitution. I don't know what the substantive arguments are for showing a violation of "Faithfully executing" the office.
But I yield. Who cares about contextual or substantive issues? "Faithfully executing" comes before defending the Constitution in the oath of office.
-
The Coach's weak yet spineless interpretation of the constitution where the president's main purpose is to protect/make safe We The People makes mush out the President's primary duty to protect the Constitution and his other role as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. That is a recipe for Fascism.
Defending the US Constitution is a quantifiable qualifier of presidential purpose and power. "Faithfully executing" the office is window dressing. I, and most americans, can point to FISA, Iraq, and torture to show that the president is not defending the US Constitution. I don't know what the substantive arguments are for showing a violation of "Faithfully executing" the office.
But I yield. Who cares about contextual or substantive issues? "Faithfully executing" comes before defending the Constitution in the oath of office.
I wouldn't call any mandate in the Constitution "window dressing." :-\
Are you saying the president does not have any obligation to try and protect the American people?
-
The Coach's weak yet spineless interpretation of the constitution where the president's main purpose is to protect/make safe We The People makes mush out the President's primary duty to protect the Constitution and his other role as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. That is a recipe for Fascism.
Defending the US Constitution is a quantifiable qualifier of presidential purpose and power. "Faithfully executing" the office is window dressing. I, and most americans, can point to FISA, Iraq, and torture to show that the president is not defending the US Constitution. I don't know what the substantive arguments are for showing a violation of "Faithfully executing" the office.
But I yield. Who cares about contextual or substantive issues? "Faithfully executing" comes before defending the Constitution in the oath of office.
Ok then Decker, as a liberal, what order do you put this countries security? 3rd, 4th? You don't think it not of the utmost importance? Or should we just wait until they hit us again on our soil?
Please don't baffle me with Atty BS and use some commonsense.
-
LOL, and you call me a fearmonger, I have more important things to worry about like how in the hell do I fix my slice, I was only able to hit 11 fairways on Friday >:(
Joe, anyone who works in a field where their services aren't REQUIRED should worry about the economy fluctuating.
Doctors and garbagemen and teachers and farmers don't have to worry as much - they provice a required service. Others - like you and I - work in an arena where our services are OPTIONAL.
If Americans see their net worth go down by 10% due to a minor DOW drop (12000 to 10500, very possible), what happens? They lose 10% of their spending power. They have to pay rent, car, gas, food, medical, and education. They don't spend that 10% on optional things - like websites and personal trainers. People like you and me that sell things that aren't requirements to live, should be more concerned than those who sell required things.
It's not fearmongering - a large # of analysts on both sides of aisle have said economy is headed for trouble. If you lost 10 to 20% of your monthly clients, would you be in trouble? most of us would!
-
I wouldn't call any mandate in the Constitution "window dressing." :-\
Are you saying the president does not have any obligation to try and protect the American people?
As commander and chief of the armed forces, that power is implied. National Security is generally a trump card to personal liberty. A free republic is a delicate balance to manage b/c it can slip so easily into fascism.
"...If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
--President Bush
I know where the man's heart lies.
-
Joe, anyone who works in a field where their services aren't REQUIRED should worry about the economy fluctuating.
Doctors and garbagemen and teachers and farmers don't have to worry as much - they provice a required service. Others - like you and I - work in an arena where our services are OPTIONAL.
If Americans see their net worth go down by 10% due to a minor DOW drop (12000 to 10500, very possible), what happens? They lose 10% of their spending power. They have to pay rent, car, gas, food, medical, and education. They don't spend that 10% on optional things - like websites and personal trainers. People like you and me that sell things that aren't requirements to live, should be more concerned than those who sell required things.
It's not fearmongering - a large # of analysts on both sides of aisle have said economy is headed for trouble. If you lost 10 to 20% of your monthly clients, would you be in trouble? most of us would!
I do have a job where I'm required, I have a referal base from 6 different physical therapy offices, most of which is paid through insurance. You should know most of what I do by now Rob, I'm not the typical "trainer" who just counts reps and sets, I work with people in most medical fields as well.....I might slow during the summer months, but I will never be that slow.
-
Joe, anyone who works in a field where their services aren't REQUIRED should worry about the economy fluctuating.
Doctors and garbagemen and teachers and farmers don't have to worry as much - they provice a required service. Others - like you and I - work in an arena where our services are OPTIONAL.
If Americans see their net worth go down by 10% due to a minor DOW drop (12000 to 10500, very possible), what happens? They lose 10% of their spending power. They have to pay rent, car, gas, food, medical, and education. They don't spend that 10% on optional things - like websites and personal trainers. People like you and me that sell things that aren't requirements to live, should be more concerned than those who sell required things.
It's not fearmongering - a large # of analysts on both sides of aisle have said economy is headed for trouble. If you lost 10 to 20% of your monthly clients, would you be in trouble? most of us would!
My experience with this in the past is that people stop buying Big ticket items like cars and houses. Consequentially they are freer to buy lower ticket items from the excess.
Both your businesses shouldn't suffer.
-
Ok then Decker, as a liberal, what order do you put this countries security? 3rd, 4th? You don't think it not of the utmost importance? Or should we just wait until they hit us again on our soil?
Please don't baffle me with Atty BS and use some commonsense.
Here is my pecking order importance:
1. US Constitution
2. National Security
3. Illegal Wars of Aggression against marginally armed countries with large oil reserves.
Coach, if you want 100% security, you'll never get it. 100% Security in life does not exist. Even if you get your republican police state where individual liberties are secondary to the State Security Interest and spying on citizens is the norm, there will still be risk.
.....A lot less freedom, more security, but still, there will be risk.
This is not an either or proposition. National Security done intelligently will not result in the sacrifice of the constitutional freedoms that define what it means to be an american.
National Security done stupidly is what we have with Bush--clumsy, ineffectual, fascist, etc.
-
As commander and chief of the armed forces, that power is implied. National Security is generally a trump card to personal liberty. A free republic is a delicate balance to manage b/c it can slip so easily into fascism.
"...If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
--President Bush
I know where the man's heart lies.
If you say the first "substantive" duty of the president is to preserve, protect, and serve the Constitution and part of the Constitution includes an implied duty to protect the American people, then where is your disagreement with Coach? Sounds like you're saying the same thing.
-
If you say the first "substantive" duty of the president is to preserve, protect, and serve the Constitution and part of the Constitution includes an implied duty to protect the American people, then where is your disagreement with Coach? Sounds like you're saying the same thing.
No we are not saying the same thing. The Coach is parroting the Bush line of National Security as the ultimate duty of the president. That's exactly what I am not saying.
Inherent in the constitution are a couple of ideas: protection of the minority, checks and balances of the exercise of federal power, guarantees of personal liberty etc.
These ideas work in the framework of a representative democracy where We the People are the ultimate arbiters of our political system.
The Coach/Bush approach to prioritizing National Security as #1 makes all other aspects of our constitutional system of governance suffer. Gone is transparency of open government. In with "State Secrets". Gone is a reasonable expectation of privacy. In with spying on anyone for any reason with any nexus to State Security.
In short, under the Coach's view, the State reigns supreme all in the name security and done with the knowledge that there is no such thing as a 100% risk free environment. National Security is the end all be all of our existence. That's paranoid. I don't condone that.
-
cool, that is reassuring. Good to hear you're tied into medical, Joe. While I love to debate you, I'd hate to see any getbigger in the poor house.
-
No we are not saying the same thing. The Coach is parroting the Bush line of National Security as the ultimate duty of the president. That's exactly what I am not saying.
Inherent in the constitution are a couple of ideas: protection of the minority, checks and balances of the exercise of federal power, guarantees of personal liberty etc.
These ideas work in the framework of a representative democracy where We the People are the ultimate arbiters of our political system.
The Coach/Bush approach to prioritizing National Security as #1 makes all other aspects of our constitutional system of governance suffer. Gone is transparency of open government. In with "State Secrets". Gone is a reasonable expectation of privacy. In with spying on anyone for any reason with any nexus to State Security.
In short, under the Coach's view, the State reigns supreme all in the name security and done with the knowledge that there is no such thing as a 100% risk free environment. National Security is the end all be all of our existence. That's paranoid. I don't condone that.
Sounds like semantics to me.
Where did he say all this? He simply said the president's main job is to protect the American people. He didn't say the state reigns supreme, strip personal liberties, etc. I can't speak for him, but I doubt that's what he intended to say. (He can correct me if I'm wrong.)
Personally, in terms of the president's job, I don't view national security any differently than free speech, freedom of religion, or any other personal liberty. They're all important.
And query which of you has the more paranoid viewpoint? The Gestapo isn't beating down your door. What specific freedoms have you lost lately (particularly since 911)?
-
Sounds like semantics to me.
Everything is semantics.
Where did he say all this? He simply said the president's main job is to protect the American people. He didn't say the state reigns supreme, strip personal liberties, etc. I can't speak for him, but I doubt that's what he intended to say. (He can correct me if I'm wrong.)
"Rob, security of this country is something like 3rd on Obama's agenda........the first obligation as a President is to protect your country." --The Coach
"But no one should doubt that we are determined to do what has to be done to protect the American people. As President, I have no higher duty." --President Bush
Bush has acted upon this "higher duty" by feloniously spying on americans, torturing detainees, ordering a war crime of aggression, and abusing presidential signing statements to usurp Congressional power of legislation.
Personally, in terms of the president's job, I don't view national security any differently than free speech, freedom of religion, or any other personal liberty. They're all important.
Not to Bush or to the Coach: first obligation as a President is to protect your country (Coach);
to protect the American people. As President, I have no higher duty (Bush)
And query which of you has the more paranoid viewpoint? The Gestapo isn't beating down your door. What specific freedoms have you lost lately (particularly since 911)?
An answer to your query, you and the Coach support Bush and his crimes. Bush paranoia surpasses that of Tricky Dick Nixon. Or have you missed the "there's a terrorist under every rock" Bush tour?
Specific freedoms I have lost include my 4th amendment right to privacy (FISA spying/Patriot Act I & II) probable cause is now a thing of the past where our "security" is concerned (do I even have to point out how ridiculous it is that we protect our freedoms by eliminating them? I think I do); I have had my tax dollars used for war crimes in Iraq, That includes Bush's use of my tax money to fund torture chambers for the CIA.
Maybe that's ok with you, but not me.
God forbid if my name surfaces in any sort of connection to the Bush war on terror: Bush has reserved the right to deem me an "enemy combatant" if he sees fit; Bush has violated the 8th amendment prohibition of Cruel and Unusual punishment by permitting CIA torture of detainees, Bush has jettisoned the right to habeus corpus, the right to a speedy trial by peers, the use of hearsay evidence etc.
It seems like you don't mind losing your 4th amendment constitutional rights to privacy. Why is that?
-
Everything is semantics.
"Rob, security of this country is something like 3rd on Obama's agenda........the first obligation as a President is to protect your country." --The Coach
"But no one should doubt that we are determined to do what has to be done to protect the American people. As President, I have no higher duty." --President Bush
Bush has acted upon this "higher duty" by feloniously spying on americans, torturing detainees, ordering a war crime of aggression, and abusing presidential signing statements to usurp Congressional power of legislation.
Not to Bush or to the Coach: first obligation as a President is to protect your country (Coach);
to protect the American people. As President, I have no higher duty (Bush)
An answer to your query, you and the Coach support Bush and his crimes. Bush paranoia surpasses that of Tricky Dick Nixon. Or have you missed the "there's a terrorist under every rock" Bush tour?
Specific freedoms I have lost include my 4th amendment right to privacy (FISA spying/Patriot Act I & II) probable cause is now a thing of the past where our "security" is concerned (do I even have to point out how ridiculous it is that we protect our freedoms by eliminating them? I think I do); I have had my tax dollars used for war crimes in Iraq, That includes Bush's use of my tax money to fund torture chambers for the CIA.
Maybe that's ok with you, but not me.
God forbid if my name surfaces in any sort of connection to the Bush war on terror: Bush has reserved the right to deem me an "enemy combatant" if he sees fit; Bush has violated the 8th amendment prohibition of Cruel and Unusual punishment by permitting CIA torture of detainees, Bush has jettisoned the right to habeus corpus, the right to a speedy trial by peers, the use of hearsay evidence etc.
It seems like you don't mind losing your 4th amendment constitutional rights to privacy. Why is that?
Because I haven't lost any Constitutional right to privacy, or the privacy protections provided by my state constitution.
So when did the government spy on you and why haven't you contacted the ACLU about this?
-
Because I haven't lost any Constitutional right to privacy, or the privacy protections provided by my state constitution.
So when did the government spy on you and why haven't you contacted the ACLU about this?
LOL. Thats the point BB. You wont know, until they want you to know. Its a right you have lost with out your permission....Its fascism....
-
Because I haven't lost any Constitutional right to privacy, or the privacy protections provided by my state constitution.
So when did the government spy on you and why haven't you contacted the ACLU about this?
That's cute Beach Bum. You know as well as I do that the information requests from our government on the subject matter are barred as a "state secret." Thank god for whistleblowers.
Your comfort with big government's fascist powers is sobering.
Government can spy on you without probable cause, torture people, and start a war of aggression and none of these things are part our traditions in the US. They are fascist...not american.
The mere fact that you are A-ok with government having these powers is troubling.
-
LOL. Thats the point BB. You wont know, until they want you to know. Its a right you have lost with out your permission....Its fascism....
What right have you lost dude? The government been spying on you too? Sounds like class action material. :)
-
That's cute Beach Bum. You know as well as I do that the information requests from our government on the subject matter are barred as a "state secret." Thank god for whistleblowers.
Your comfort with big government's fascist powers is sobering.
Government can spy on you without probable cause, torture people, and start a war of aggression and none of these things are part our traditions in the US. They are fascist...not american.
The mere fact that you are A-ok with government having these powers is troubling.
I was joking about the ACLU, but serious about government spying. When did the government start spying on you? (Since this is one of the rights you claimed to have lost.)
-
I was joking about the ACLU, but serious about government spying. When did the government start spying on you? (Since this is one of the rights you claimed to have lost.)
Thanks to whistleblowers we know the Bush administration has authorized widespread spying on american citizens without any show of probable cause.
That felony is enough to put all of our 4th amendment rights in jeopardy. The merest appearance of impropriety in the exercise of State power in contravention of guaranteed constitutional rights is enough to cause damage to us all.
Thanks to 'State Secrets', which you seem to be enamored of, we will not be able to have the identities of the injured revealed.
Big Secret Government (i.e., fascism) wins again.
The losers: We the People and the US Constitution.
We need more whistle blowers and an intense investigation into the criminal Bush Administration.
-
In the initial 10,000 taps audited, 10% of the audited FBI calls were shown to be abuse of power (IE going beyond limits of warrant or not having a warrant at all, or listening to political adversaries).
They stopped running audits after that came out. That was 2 years ago?
-
In the initial 10,000 taps audited, 10% of the audited FBI calls were shown to be abuse of power (IE going beyond limits of warrant or not having a warrant at all, or listening to political adversaries).
They stopped running audits after that came out. That was 2 years ago?
When accountability is shitcanned, the slippery slope of illegality takes off.
-
When accountability is shitcanned, the slippery slope of illegality takes off.
But since I cannot list them, they must not exist, by Beach Bum's logic.
-
Thanks to whistleblowers we know the Bush administration has authorized widespread spying on american citizens without any show of probable cause.
That felony is enough to put all of our 4th amendment rights in jeopardy. The merest appearance of impropriety in the exercise of State power in contravention of guaranteed constitutional rights is enough to cause damage to us all.
Thanks to 'State Secrets', which you seem to be enamored of, we will not be able to have the identities of the injured revealed.
Big Secret Government (i.e., fascism) wins again.
The losers: We the People and the US Constitution.
We need more whistle blowers and an intense investigation into the criminal Bush Administration.
Decker you said "Specific freedoms I have lost include my 4th amendment right to privacy (FISA spying/Patriot Act I & II) . . . ." So has the government been spying on you or not?
-
Decker you said "Specific freedoms I have lost include my 4th amendment right to privacy (FISA spying/Patriot Act I & II) . . . ." So has the government been spying on you or not?
It doesn't matter.
So stop your rantings defending our Police State b/c it's not going to get you anywhere.
The fact of the matter is, is that the Bush Administration was caught red-handed authorizing vast spying sweeps of the american public without probable cause.
The simple fact that the president is spying on americans without a warrant and no probable cause is enough to damage all of our 4th amendment rights. My personal factual showing of injury is not necessary to show that the 4th Am is being damaged by the Bush Administration. A whistleblower has already shown that.
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
Do you believe the 4th amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches has been damaged by Bush's spying on US citizens?
-
It doesn't matter.
So stop your rantings defending our Police State b/c it's not going to get you anywhere.
The fact of the matter is, is that the Bush Administration was caught red-handed authorizing vast spying sweeps of the american public without probable cause.
The simple fact that the president is spying on americans without a warrant and no probable cause is enough to damage all of our 4th amendment rights. My personal factual showing of injury is not necessary to show that the 4th Am is being damaged by the Bush Administration. A whistleblower has already shown that.
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
Do you believe the 4th amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches has been damaged by Bush's spying on US citizens?
Who is ranting? lol. . . I'm just trying to understand these rights you claim to have lost. So you lost your 4th Amendment right to privacy due to the Patriot Act, but it doesn't matter if the government has actually been spying on you? ?? Would that be the same provision of the Patriot Act that was deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge?
I've never supported warrantless wiretaps.
No, there has been no great harm to the 4th Amendment, because the legislature passed a law, Bush tried to implement the law, and a federal judge ruled portions of the law are unconstitutional. The system worked. Or I should say it is working, because the Bush Admin appealed the judge's ruling.
Sounds like you have a beef with all of the legislators who voted to pass the Patriot Act.
-
Who is ranting? lol. . . I'm just trying to understand these rights you claim to have lost. So you lost your 4th Amendment right to privacy due to the Patriot Act, but it doesn't matter if the government has actually been spying on you? ?? Would that be the same provision of the Patriot Act that was deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge?
I've never supported warrantless wiretaps.
No, there has been no great harm to the 4th Amendment, because the legislature passed a law, Bush tried to implement the law, and a federal judge ruled portions of the law are unconstitutional. The system worked. Or I should say it is working, because the Bush Admin appealed the judge's ruling.
Sounds like you have a beef with all of the legislators who voted to pass the Patriot Act.
Yes, that portion of the Patriot Act was found to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately that does not extend to the Bush Administration's wanton violation of the FISA requirement that a warrant be secured when engaging in domestic spying on citizens.
Now the Bush Adm is trying to finesse 'basket warrants' which do not target an individual with probable cause for spying but entire groups of people.
Just what doesn't the Bush Adm. understand about 4 Amendment rights?
So if you are against the warrantless wiretapping of the Bush Adm, I suggest you sign this petition:
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=725&page=UserAction&JServSessionIdr005=dol03myhl1.app20a
Join me in opposing the government's anti-constitutional effort.
-
Thanks for the link, Decker. Im signed on. BTW, Beachbum is a dead-horse so dont waste to much time trying to make sense with him.... :-\
-
Thanks for the link, Decker. Im signed on. BTW, Beachbum is a dead-horse so dont waste to much time trying to make sense with him.... :-\
Thank you for doing that.
I think Beach Bum is a very bright guy. He's good at debating. But at times he defends the indefensible.