On October 24 2012 13:54 Swazi Spring wrote: [quote] He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama actually wrote in his signing statement that he didn't agree with the LIMITATIONS the law placed on his ability to detain Americans, and his Justice Department has fought against challenges to the law.
I don't have time to research this right now, but from what I remember the Republicans wanted to force military custody of terrorist suspects and the Obama administration fought against that. A few links:
I can't research this further at the moment, but Republicans clearly favored a harder line than Democrats both for the military detention of suspects and for indefinite detention. edit to answer Swazi above: go back to checking who voted in favor of the indefinite retention provision. Republicans supported it much more than Democrats. Are you ready to rail against Republicans?
The Democrats supported it wholeheartedly as well, they had complete control of the Senate and yet they all voted for it anyway. To answer your question, yes, I am willing to rail against ANYONE who is attacking our civil liberties, no matter what letter you have after your name.
I think you just proved my point that this was a bipartisan bill...
You said: "The Democrats supported it wholeheartedly as well". But the house vote was 93 Yes, 93 No. So you're wrong.
You then said: "they had complete control of the Senate and yet they all voted for it anyway". But the senate vote was 48 Yes, 3 No. So you're wrong again.
Then you finally said: "I am willing to rail against ANYONE who is attacking our civil liberties, no matter what letter you have after your name". But I don't see you railing against these 234 Republicans who voted for it.
Well they didn't ALL vote for it and neither did ALL Republicans voted for it, but that doesn't make it bipartisan. Obviously less Democrats voted for it in the House than Republicans did, especially seeing how the Republicans control the House.
Oh I am railing against it, rest assured. We already replaced Russ Carnahan with Lacy Clay, who voted against it. Both of my senators voted for it and I've been campaigning against McCaskill who has been trying to run for re-election here. In fact, I just wrote a paper in college in which I exposed her close ties to Monsanto, one of her largest campaign financiers.
On October 24 2012 14:11 Signet wrote: [quote] I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama actually wrote in his signing statement that he didn't agree with the LIMITATIONS the law placed on his ability to detain Americans, and his Justice Department has fought against challenges to the law.
I don't have time to research this right now, but from what I remember the Republicans wanted to force military custody of terrorist suspects and the Obama administration fought against that. A few links:
I can't research this further at the moment, but Republicans clearly favored a harder line than Democrats both for the military detention of suspects and for indefinite detention. edit to answer Swazi above: go back to checking who voted in favor of the indefinite retention provision. Republicans supported it much more than Democrats. Are you ready to rail against Republicans?
The Democrats supported it wholeheartedly as well, they had complete control of the Senate and yet they all voted for it anyway. To answer your question, yes, I am willing to rail against ANYONE who is attacking our civil liberties, no matter what letter you have after your name.
I think you just proved my point that this was a bipartisan bill...
You said: "The Democrats supported it wholeheartedly as well". But the house vote was 93 Yes, 93 No. So you're wrong.
You then said: "they had complete control of the Senate and yet they all voted for it anyway". But the senate vote was 48 Yes, 3 No. So you're wrong again.
Then you finally said: "I am willing to rail against ANYONE who is attacking our civil liberties, no matter what letter you have after your name". But I don't see you railing against these 234 Republicans who voted for it.
Well they didn't ALL vote for it and neither did ALL Republicans voted for it, but that doesn't make it bipartisan. Obviously less Democrats voted for it in the House than Republicans did, especially seeing how the Republicans control the House.
Oh I am railing against it, rest assured. We already replaced Russ Carnahan with Lacy Clay, who voted against it. Both of my senators voted for it and I've been campaigning against McCaskill who has been trying to run for re-election here. In fact, I just wrote a paper in college in which I exposed her close ties to Monsanto, one of her largest campaign financiers.
So you admit that you're wrong on the first 2 points.
And in the 3rd point, I asked why you aren't railing against the Republicans who voted for it, and then you cite examples where you railed against 2 Democrats. Fail.
On October 24 2012 14:35 Swazi Spring wrote: [quote] The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama actually wrote in his signing statement that he didn't agree with the LIMITATIONS the law placed on his ability to detain Americans, and his Justice Department has fought against challenges to the law.
I don't have time to research this right now, but from what I remember the Republicans wanted to force military custody of terrorist suspects and the Obama administration fought against that. A few links:
I can't research this further at the moment, but Republicans clearly favored a harder line than Democrats both for the military detention of suspects and for indefinite detention. edit to answer Swazi above: go back to checking who voted in favor of the indefinite retention provision. Republicans supported it much more than Democrats. Are you ready to rail against Republicans?
The Democrats supported it wholeheartedly as well, they had complete control of the Senate and yet they all voted for it anyway. To answer your question, yes, I am willing to rail against ANYONE who is attacking our civil liberties, no matter what letter you have after your name.
I think you just proved my point that this was a bipartisan bill...
You said: "The Democrats supported it wholeheartedly as well". But the house vote was 93 Yes, 93 No. So you're wrong.
You then said: "they had complete control of the Senate and yet they all voted for it anyway". But the senate vote was 48 Yes, 3 No. So you're wrong again.
Then you finally said: "I am willing to rail against ANYONE who is attacking our civil liberties, no matter what letter you have after your name". But I don't see you railing against these 234 Republicans who voted for it.
Well they didn't ALL vote for it and neither did ALL Republicans voted for it, but that doesn't make it bipartisan. Obviously less Democrats voted for it in the House than Republicans did, especially seeing how the Republicans control the House.
Oh I am railing against it, rest assured. We already replaced Russ Carnahan with Lacy Clay, who voted against it. Both of my senators voted for it and I've been campaigning against McCaskill who has been trying to run for re-election here. In fact, I just wrote a paper in college in which I exposed her close ties to Monsanto, one of her largest campaign financiers.
So you admit that you're wrong on the first 2 points.
And in the 3rd point, I asked why you aren't railing against the Republicans who voted for it, and then you cite examples where you railed against 2 Democrats. Fail.
Roy Blunt isn't up for re-election for another four years, so what can I do? I did write him (and both Democrats) a letter last year trying to convince him to vote against the NDAA, but it doesn't seem to have done much good.
On October 25 2012 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote: i almost fell out my chair in class, and then faceplamed at the enormity of his stupidity.
If Obama has nothing to hide, then where is the harm? Obama always talks about how much he loves the poor, now is his chance to prove it.
Exactly. To be honest, i see this as a pretty "clever" way to get more speculations and maybe even votes for Romney just because of the birth certification bullshit that has been going on.
If Obama doesn't do anything, i'm sure there are people who take it as Obama has something to hide and thus maybe doesn't vote for him or just questions him about it. People are pretty simply minded when it comes to these things.
But yeah, pretty facepalm stuff right here though.
What a huge joke.. Trump is great at marketing himself (love the addition of his twitter and facebook) but if anyone takes this seriously, they obviously are quite dense. Does anyone actually believe Trump thinks this would work? Consider yourself a fool if that's the case.
Who are the other presidents worldwide that released their college transcripts? That part seems like a pretty bizarre statement. Unless he's talking about Prime Ministers, in which case I'm still not sure they all release their college transcripts.
Edit: Romney's own site doesn't include his college records, I hope Trump makes the same pledge to him.
On October 25 2012 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote: i almost fell out my chair in class, and then faceplamed at the enormity of his stupidity.
If Obama has nothing to hide, then where is the harm? Obama always talks about how much he loves the poor, now is his chance to prove it.
Exactly. To be honest, i see this as a pretty "clever" way to get more speculations and maybe even votes for Romney just because of the birth certification bullshit that has been going on.
If Obama doesn't do anything, i'm sure there are people who take it as Obama has something to hide and thus maybe doesn't vote for him or just questions him about it. People are pretty simply minded when it comes to these things.
But yeah, pretty facepalm stuff right here though.
The birth certificate thing was nonsense, but this is a pretty legitimate request. I could care less about his college grades ad passport records, why didn't Trump demand his college papers? That's what I'm concerned about. We already know that Frank Marshall Davis, a well known communist, was a father-figure to Obama. We also know that Bill Ayers, another well known communist, was one of Obama's closest friends in college.
Obama claims that he wrote some very conservative and pro-American papers in college, but he has yet to provide any evidence of this. All of the evidence we have of that time in his life shows that he was even more radical back then than he is now.
On October 25 2012 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote: i almost fell out my chair in class, and then faceplamed at the enormity of his stupidity.
If Obama has nothing to hide, then where is the harm? Obama always talks about how much he loves the poor, now is his chance to prove it.
I don't object to it beyond the point that it is a blatant political ploy by an individual who associated himself with the birther movement in 2008. Simply put, where were Trump's millions 5 months ago?
I never minded Trump as a business person, or someone of moderate celebrity but as a political figure he is simply obnoxious. He has more money than most people in the world ever will combined, and seems to feel that he can use it as a soap box to chide the President of the United States.
I see it as more disrespectful to the office than anything else. Trump is trolling, and trolling hard.
On October 25 2012 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote: i almost fell out my chair in class, and then faceplamed at the enormity of his stupidity.
If Obama has nothing to hide, then where is the harm? Obama always talks about how much he loves the poor, now is his chance to prove it.
I don't object to it beyond the point that it is a blatant political ploy by an individual who associated himself with the birther movement in 2008. Simply put, where were Trump's millions 5 months ago?
I never minded Trump as a business person, or someone of moderate celebrity but as a political figure he is simply obnoxious. He has more money than most people in the world ever will combined, and seems to feel that he can use it as a soap box to chide the President of the United States.
I see it as more disrespectful to the office than anything else. Trump is trolling, and trolling hard.
I see what you're saying, but to quote my favorite TV show of all time: "There's a difference between an attack on the office and the person currently holding it."
On October 25 2012 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote: i almost fell out my chair in class, and then faceplamed at the enormity of his stupidity.
If Obama has nothing to hide, then where is the harm? Obama always talks about how much he loves the poor, now is his chance to prove it.
Exactly. To be honest, i see this as a pretty "clever" way to get more speculations and maybe even votes for Romney just because of the birth certification bullshit that has been going on.
If Obama doesn't do anything, i'm sure there are people who take it as Obama has something to hide and thus maybe doesn't vote for him or just questions him about it. People are pretty simply minded when it comes to these things.
But yeah, pretty facepalm stuff right here though.
The birth certificate thing was nonsense, but this is a pretty legitimate request. I could care less about his college grades ad passport records, why didn't Trump demand his college papers? That's what I'm concerned about. We already know that Frank Marshall Davis, a well known communist, was a father-figure to Obama. We also know that Bill Ayers, another well known communist, was one of Obama's closest friends in college.
Obama claims that he wrote some very conservative and pro-American papers in college, but he has yet to provide any evidence of this. All of the evidence we have of that time in his life shows that he was even more radical back then than he is now.
On October 25 2012 01:51 kwizach wrote: I am genuinely laughing at Trump's request. What an attention-seeking dumbass.
On second thought, though, it's pretty sad there are actually morons who will consider this a reasonable request and bargain.
How is it unreasonable? The American people have no idea who Obama is, he is just sort of a magical figure who came out of nowhere. How did someone that no one had ever heard of, someone who only served a few years as a senator, suddenly become president of the most powerful country on the planet? That is a frightening question.
On October 25 2012 01:51 kwizach wrote: I am genuinely laughing at Trump's request. What an attention-seeking dumbass.
On second thought, though, it's pretty sad there are actually morons who will consider this a reasonable request and bargain.
How is it unreasonable? The American people have no idea who Obama is, he is just sort of a magical figure who came out of nowhere. How did someone that no one had ever heard of, someone who only served a few years as a senator, suddenly become president of the most powerful country on the planet? That is a frightening question.
I'd argue they have even less of an idea of who Romney is.
On October 25 2012 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote: i almost fell out my chair in class, and then faceplamed at the enormity of his stupidity.
If Obama has nothing to hide, then where is the harm? Obama always talks about how much he loves the poor, now is his chance to prove it.
I don't object to it beyond the point that it is a blatant political ploy by an individual who associated himself with the birther movement in 2008. Simply put, where were Trump's millions 5 months ago?
I never minded Trump as a business person, or someone of moderate celebrity but as a political figure he is simply obnoxious. He has more money than most people in the world ever will combined, and seems to feel that he can use it as a soap box to chide the President of the United States.
I see it as more disrespectful to the office than anything else. Trump is trolling, and trolling hard.
I see what you're saying, but to quote my favorite TV show of all time: "There's a difference between an attack on the office and the person currently holding it."
Very true, it is difficult for me to find a legitimate political foot to stand on against this one beyond Trump's own vendetta against Obama's records in the past.. This really just contributes nothing of substance to the race, it would be like if Warren Buffet did the same to Romney for his tax records over the last 10 years.
In all honesty it is a brilliant move, forces a reaction out Obama; Trump loses little in the meantime and may swing votes Romney's way
EPT![[image loading]](https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/304460_10152199183675725_1269411291_n.jpg)
