Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Btw, does Obama officially suck?Follow

#352 Oct 19 2012 at 7:38 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This just seems so opposite of his typical stance.
Pretty sure his typical stance is to always be opposite.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#353 Oct 19 2012 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This just seems so opposite of his typical stance.
Pretty sure his typical stance is to always be opposite.


Smiley: thumbsup

#354 Oct 19 2012 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's silly to make a big deal about what could happen under a given law without examining what could happen under existing law. It's like insisting that a new car is unsafe because if you fall asleep at the wheel you could crash and die. What happens if you fall asleep at the wheel of your current car? Same thing, right? All police powers carry with them the potential for abuse (or just really bad choices/mistakes). That by itself isn't sufficient argument against allowing them.


It's also silly to give authority figures more easily abused powers under the banner of "They could already abuse the ones they have, so hey, whatever..."

Yea, I'm confused by gbaji here. Your statement would typically be his, seeing as he wants as small a government as possible and as little regulation as possible. This just seems so opposite of his typical stance. I haven't been following this, so did a Republican propose this?


I've honestly lost track. IIRC, the original issue was about immigration checkpoints somehow equating the the Constitution just not applying anymore or something. I called that silly (correctly I think). There was some talk about how this really doesn't violate the 4th amendment. Then someone stormed in ranting about the patriot act, FISA, NDAA, NSLs, etc and how this meant that our government could just arrest and detail any random person they wanted, without trial, and without that person having any legal recourse. I called BS on this as well. The example given in response was a gag order, not on someone arrested and detained without cause or charge, but someone told not to publicly reveal information the government had requested from him related to an investigation. Kinda not in the same ballpark. I then pointed out that the laws being ranted about didn't grant the government the power to do what was being claimed. I said that such things *could* happen, but were rare, normally accidents, and could happen under existing law anyway.

Then someone else (BD I think) tossed out his "here's a guy who was lost in a jail for 2 years" example. Which basically confirmed my point.


I'm not saying we blindly grant power to our government which could be abused. I'm saying that we should assess those laws/powers based on what they actually do, and not wild claims by people who apparently have no clue what they're talking about and can't back up their claims at all. Am I somewhat concerned about the government being able to search an ISPs data and compel said ISP to not tell anyone what the government was looking for? Sure. Is it on the scale of secret police snatching people up in the middle of the night, tossing them into their black helicopters and disappearing them? Nope. Not even close. I just don't think that issues like this are helped by wild exaggeration of the facts. Give me a calm rational argument about problematic components to the patriot act, and I'll agree. Light your hair on fire and insist that the patriot act gives the government infinite power and effectively cancels out the whole constitution, and I'll call you a nutter.


I do get how people who take positions based on being "for or against" something might see that as inconsistent though. For me, it's a matter of degrees.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#355 Oct 19 2012 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's silly to make a big deal about what could happen under a given law without examining what could happen under existing law. It's like insisting that a new car is unsafe because if you fall asleep at the wheel you could crash and die. What happens if you fall asleep at the wheel of your current car? Same thing, right? All police powers carry with them the potential for abuse (or just really bad choices/mistakes). That by itself isn't sufficient argument against allowing them.


It's also silly to give authority figures more easily abused powers under the banner of "They could already abuse the ones they have, so hey, whatever..."

Yea, I'm confused by gbaji here.


I've honestly lost track. IIRC, the original issue was about immigration checkpoints
That's the problem.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#356 Oct 19 2012 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:

I've honestly lost track. IIRC, the original issue was about immigration checkpoints
That's the problem.


I think it's less a problem than status quo for this forum.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#357 Oct 19 2012 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
I'm not saying we blindly grant power to our government which could be abused. I'm saying that we should assess those laws/powers based on what they actually do, and not wild claims by people who apparently have no clue what they're talking about and can't back up their claims at all. Am I somewhat concerned about the government being able to search an ISPs data and compel said ISP to not tell anyone what the government was looking for? Sure. Is it on the scale of secret police snatching people up in the middle of the night, tossing them into their black helicopters and disappearing them? Nope. Not even close. I just don't think that issues like this are helped by wild exaggeration of the facts. Give me a calm rational argument about problematic components to the patriot act, and I'll agree. Light your hair on fire and insist that the patriot act gives the government infinite power and effectively cancels out the whole constitution, and I'll call you a nutter.


Your problem (at least here in this forum) is your inconsistency. You're willing to turn a blind eye to things like the Patriot Act and NDAA because it's a Republican effort so it must be good, but the minute the discussion turns to domestic legislation (you know, stuff that will actually HELP AMERICANS), you go off on a tangent about "big government this and that" and "eewwwww socialism!"

The reality (and answer to Ugly's somewhat rhetorical question) is that you don't have an opinion. You either argue in blind faith of Republican ideals or take whatever position seems to be the minority for the sake of pure argument. Nobody takes you seriously on either account.


Edited, Oct 19th 2012 4:57pm by BrownDuck
#358 Oct 19 2012 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
gbaji wrote:
I do get how people who take positions based on being "for or against" something might see that as inconsistent though. For me, it's a matter of degrees.


BrownDuck wrote:
Your problem (at least here in this forum) is your inconsistency.


It's like I'm psychic or something.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#359 Oct 19 2012 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Outside of your claimed pro-choice stance, nothing, and I mean nothing that you have posted about here has ever deviated one iota from the far right agenda. Kind of a strange coincidence, don't you think?

EDIT: In the interest of fairness, if you have clearly deviated elsewhere, please be so kind as to link it.


HUGS,
Bijou

Edited, Oct 19th 2012 4:05pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#360 Oct 19 2012 at 4:04 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I do get how people who take positions based on being "for or against" something might see that as inconsistent though. For me, it's a matter of degrees.


BrownDuck wrote:
Your problem (at least here in this forum) is your inconsistency.


It's like I'm psychic or something.


The only "degrees" on your dial are "Republican" and "Other".
#361 Oct 19 2012 at 8:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Outside of your claimed pro-choice stance, nothing, and I mean nothing that you have posted about here has ever deviated one iota from the far right agenda. Kind of a strange coincidence, don't you think?


He doesn't agree with the far right. He just understands why they are actually correct.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#362 Oct 20 2012 at 1:38 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not saying we blindly grant power to our government which could be abused. I'm saying that we should assess those laws/powers based on what they actually do, and not wild claims by people who apparently have no clue what they're talking about and can't back up their claims at all. Am I somewhat concerned about the government being able to search an ISPs data and compel said ISP to not tell anyone what the government was looking for? Sure. Is it on the scale of secret police snatching people up in the middle of the night, tossing them into their black helicopters and disappearing them? Nope. Not even close. I just don't think that issues like this are helped by wild exaggeration of the facts. Give me a calm rational argument about problematic components to the patriot act, and I'll agree. Light your hair on fire and insist that the patriot act gives the government infinite power and effectively cancels out the whole constitution, and I'll call you a nutter.

That's a slippery slope right there. Secret data collection is just a few steps away from spiriting away entire villages of people in the middle of the night, like they're doing right now in Syria. And we all know how you feel about slippery slopes.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#363 Oct 20 2012 at 4:35 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
326 posts
Elinda wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
It's not rare in any administration.
Dimwit.


It should be rare in supposed liberal administrations. Sheep.

Quote:
You need to do some soul-searching to figure out why it is that when Obama does presidential type stuff it pisses you off so badly (hint: It has nothing to do with Obama).


Hint: Obviously it doesn't. WTF. It has to do with both parties overwhelmingly supporting violations of The @#%^ing Constitution since 9/11. My issue in this thread is why supposed "liberals" objected with venom when Bush was abrogating the Constitution during his term, but suddenly when Obama was elected they've been mum. They've duct-taped their mouths. See No Hear No Speak No Evil. They'd rather their tribal choice gained power than whatever atrocities that Person in Power actually conducts.

At least if Romney is elected they'd feign outrage and an opposition might show. At least if Romney won the (largely Democratic Party) Mainstream Media might start to ask relevant questions about extent of executive power, Constitional umbrage, etc.

Why am I pissed off so badly? The President and majority of elected representives of my country are taking a sh*t on the founding document of my country, the Constitution and its protections, which IMO was a very good document. Maybe you disagree and would like to see Amendment 28: Dismissal of Habeaus Corpus. Amendment 29: Withdraw Amendment 6 guaranteeing right to a speedy trial.

I don't give a @#%^ing sh*t which party is in power, if that's your damning attack. Not sure what it is. Any party in power that pisses on the Constitution is sh*t. It's remarkable that partisans continue to apologize and dismiss and turn 180 degrees from what they were outraged at from the previous administration. High School BS. Too scared to be outside your group, so you have no balls.



Edited, Oct 20th 2012 6:37am by Palpitus1
#364 Oct 20 2012 at 5:01 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
326 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Your problem (at least here in this forum) is your inconsistency. You're willing to turn a blind eye to things like the Patriot Act and NDAA because it's a Republican effort


Are you just ignorant or willfully ignorant? Patriot Act, NDAA, FISA, AUMF is a bipartisan effort. Take a moment to look up bills on Project Vote Smart (http://votesmart.org/) if you actually care to be enlightened. Both parties are complicit. DUH.

And of course, btw, Obama had a majority of Congress his first two years. AMAZING how these horrible things took place when he had Presidential and Congressional opportunity to overturn them!

"Oh, but that's uh, because the GOP had the filibuster! THE FILIBUSTER!@!!!"

"But why then, didn't the Democrats filibuster renewal of Iraq War money during the Bush term? Pelosi threatened it. Oh my, they didn't follow through. Oh my, the Democrats are pussies who stand for nothing.".

ETA: After trying to verify my own link, apparently Project Vote Smart has engaged in a horrible new website layout whose search function sucks, or sold out. But be assured, Democrats' votes on these various bills are equally cynical. I remember my only refuge at The Patriot Act being Russ Feingold. Did I misremember and all other Dem Senators vote against it?

Edited, Oct 20th 2012 7:10am by Palpitus1
#365 Oct 20 2012 at 7:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Let me understand this. You want a Republican in office because you believe the opposition from the left will be more effective when he/she inevitably breaks our trust?

That's some pretty bitter mojo you got there, kid.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#366 Oct 20 2012 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
At this point I want Obama to win just so we can watch the racists squirm in discomfort for another four years. So entertaining.
#367 Oct 20 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Samira wrote:
Let me understand this. You want a Republican in office because you believe the opposition from the left will be more effective when he/she inevitably breaks our trust?

That's some pretty bitter mojo you got there, kid.


It's something being echo'ed by some far leftists in what I characterize as a despondent fit of histrionics as a result of Obama's 'moderacy'.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#368 Oct 21 2012 at 2:42 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
326 posts
Samira wrote:
Let me understand this. You want a Republican in office because you believe the opposition from the left will be more effective when he/she inevitably breaks our trust?


There's no trust I give. Not sure what you're talking about there.

Yes, the gain of Romney winning would be that "liberals" would suddently start objecting to the bullsh*t that Obama has done in the past four years that liberals have been silent about, since with Romney a Republican will be doing it. This isn't just about "liberals" in society. Perhaps "liberals" aka Democrat Senators and Representatives would start to vote "no" on utterly ridiculous bills, and start questioning Executive Power. DUH.

Quote:
That's some pretty bitter mojo you got there, kid.


What in the hell does this mean? I'm bitter because I value the Constitution above party affiliations and tribalism? I'm bitter because I think if Romney wins, a Democratic opposition would better preserve rights than if Obama gets another term and continues to undermine this? I'm not bitter, I'm a realist. Look into it.

"Thomas Paine, you bitter kid!"

ETA: I'm obviously not comparing myself to Paine. I'm comparing you to some utter moron in the 18th century that would've called him a "bitter kid" rather than actually face what he was saying. And also obviously, just because I cite Paine doesn't mean I'm some Tea Party idiot. <---this edit to avoid at least one superficial reply. If anyone is still wilfully ignorant about what I'm pissed about, refer again to my OP listing Obama's egregious actions.

Edited, Oct 21st 2012 5:12am by Palpitus1
#369 Oct 21 2012 at 5:23 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
326 posts


What is "Counterpunch"?

If you want to dismiss leftists as agendaists for some reasons, at least link to someone serious.

Objection to gutting The Constitution....uh it's uh...."histrionics!"

What me worry.
#370 Oct 22 2012 at 7:09 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'm a realist.
Weren't you the one that said not voting would actually mean something?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#371 Oct 22 2012 at 4:41 PM Rating: Default
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'm a realist.
Weren't you the one that said not voting would actually mean something?


No, I think that you said that it would mean nothing.
I am not voting. Voting at this point is like mowing your lawn when the house is burning down. You can waste your time feeling all tingly and patriotic.. but you are doing nothing but taking a corpse out to dinner. Not the corpse of the US but the corpse of the federal government.
Just stepping into those booths would make me feel dirty and Americans should be ashamed to take part in them.

You are not voting for president. You are voting for the regional manager for PiggyBank USA.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#372 Oct 23 2012 at 12:51 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
You are not voting for president. You are voting for the regional manager for PiggyBank USA.


And I prefer he not believe in magic underpants. Its just not something I can wrap my head around.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#373 Oct 23 2012 at 7:20 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
No, I think that you said that it would mean nothing.
So reading is on your list of things you abandoned when you started pretending to be religious?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#374 Feb 27 2013 at 6:00 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
326 posts
Lol. Nice job then, Obama, instituionializing FISA for another five years; dodging legal rationale for murudering US citizens; utilizing the full power of the AG to say no lawsuit on your illegalities will ever be held.

Hey, where's our next super HOPE and CHANGE candidate going to arise, that will challenge these egregious affronts? Obviously this has nothing at all to do with party. It has to do with Balls, aka: some adherence to the ******* Constitution.
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#375 Feb 27 2013 at 6:07 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:

Hey, where's our next super HOPE and CHANGE candidate going to arise, that will challenge these egregious affronts? Obviously this has nothing at all to do with party. It has to do with Balls, aka: some adherence to the @#%^ing Constitution.
Hilary's coming. She's got balls.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#376 Feb 27 2013 at 6:27 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
326 posts
Elinda wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:

Hey, where's our next super HOPE and CHANGE candidate going to arise, that will challenge these egregious affronts? Obviously this has nothing at all to do with party. It has to do with Balls, aka: some adherence to the @#%^ing Constitution.
Hilary's coming. She's got balls.


Civil rights-crushing balls, in the name of defending ourselves against terrorists, sure. Let's just further rape the Fouth Amendmaet in the name of freedom.

Female despot rather than male black despot: CHANGE!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 251 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (251)