President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Eric]

Spin and gloss over these things all you want,..

You mean calling you out on your lies?

but YOU used storm troopers to label W,

Yes, the curtailment of civil liberties and the use of torture is very Nazi like.
Hell, the term "enhanced interogration" is actually from the Nazis.
Defend or denounce it's efficacy in the War on Terror, but that is a fact.

When Obama has people conducting themselves in a much more storm trooperish way.

You are talking about a campaign that had volunteers in the hundreds of thousands.
Many of the instances you cite, like the Black Panthers, don't even have any relationship to Obama.
I am talking about decisions that originated in the oval office and cost people their lives.

To be honest, to compare either administration to anything Nazi is irresponsible and unfair. We're talking about a regime that is responsible for 55 million deaths and REAL torture of REAL Innocent people.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Innocents? Come on! If you're found in Kabul and you're not from there and are doing terrorist activities you are a terrorist.

Total made-up shit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03 ... -innocent/

You still don't seem to care about saving American lives as much as you do about whining about anything W.

Is that why you guys have been poking fun at Homeland Security's report on homegrown extremists all week?

Jap-Americans were not a threat......the evil mofo's at Gitmo are. We're also talking about 340 terrorists at Gitmo as opposed tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans. Just a real unfair and ignorant comparison. Just atrocious!

Broabrushing any group of people as "evil mofos" is only a few steps removed from rounding up Japanese Americans.
In both instances, people are viewed as a dehumanized enemy, and not judged on a case-by-case basis.

[Lula]

better to cut 100 mil than nothing, geez

[The_Noble_Cause]

Spin and gloss over these things all you want,..

You mean calling you out on your lies?

Name one?

How about suggesting that the Black Panthers are in any way working for Obama, for starters.

[RossValoryRocks]

Neither Clinton nor Bush tried to cut shit. So Obama is one up on them here.

You're kidding right?
Clinton is the only president in modern history to actually reduce the size of gov't.

Bullshit...the Republicans in congress did it...despite Clinton, unfortunately they got power mad and lost their minds.

[RossValoryRocks]

I don't think you know the facts of this case, nor do you care.
You're just defending Bush at all costs.

Bush had full congressional approval from day one. You know it. FISA and AUMF were all he needed. FISA explicitly says "the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted."

Also democrats passed the PAA (2007) allowing for said warrantless wiretapping.

Yeah, I don't know the case at all. I just see the case through the same Bush hating glasses as you do. I see it objectively, you do not.

I am not defending Bush at all...you on the other hand and using that tired old tactic of "Say the other person is doing what you are and shut them up".

It won't work.

All you do is defend your lib gods (with a small g) and BASH anyone you don't agree with. At least I am objective on things, which you are not.

You should really be a speech writer for the DNC, you can spin, lie and try and cloud the issue and actually get PAID to do so!

Bush was a fuck up in many many ways...which is why I am no longer a Republican...if that is what a Republican is, then I want NO parts of it.

Can you say the same about your Party? I doubt it.

[RossValoryRocks]

better to cut 100 mil than nothing, geez

So on April 3 it was ok that O put forth a 3.6 trillion dollar budget, and on April 20 it is ok to cut 100 mill? It's a stunt lula, the tea parties had an effect. A trillion and a half short, but an effect I guess.

Sorry dude...gotta agree with the Libs on this one.

Even the mightiest rivers start with a single drop of rain [(TM) (C) 2009 by Stu].

Did the tea parties have something to do with it...ABSOLUTELY...however...it is a start. If they can find other places to cut, they can make up a lot more than $100 million.

I like it for that reason, it's a start. You have to start somewhere.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Bush had full congressional approval from day one. You know it.

LOL.
What do you think the scandal is about?
Why did the Bush admin. look into prosecuting the NYTimes under the Espionage Act after they told the world about the wiretaps?
Even *If* the administration clandestinely clued a few members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about it, that doesn’t make it legal.
Bush had two options: follow FISA or change it.

I am not defending Bush at all...

No, of course not.
You're only saying that Bush was following the FISA law - LIE.
And that no domestic surveillance has occurred - LIE
And that Bush should be given a pass for unilateral secret spying because Obama also engaged in illegal wiretaps - LIE.

..you on the other hand and using that tired old tactic of "Say the other person is doing what you are and shut them up".
It won't work.

No, the one guy broke the law.
This is very simple.
By the time Obama assumed the office, the wiretapping program had been leaked, debated in Congress, and already brought in line with some form of FISA (thought, obviously, it’s a work in progress).

All you do is defend your lib gods (with a small g) and BASH anyone you don't agree with. At least I am objective on things, which you are not.

Right.
I was the first guy on here to bash Clinton for repealing Glass-Steagall back when everyone thought the Bush economy was flying high.

Bush was a fuck up in many many ways...which is why I am no longer a Republican...if that is what a Republican is, then I want NO parts of it.

Can you say the same about your Party? I doubt it.

Wouldn't want to.
With the exception of a few Wall Street Clinton-holdovers, I think the Obama administration is shaping up to be everything I voted for.

[Lula]

better to cut 100 mil than nothing, geez

So on April 3 it was ok that O put forth a 3.6 trillion dollar budget, and on April 20 it is ok to cut 100 mill? It's a stunt lula, the tea parties had an effect. A trillion and a half short, but an effect I guess.

the tea parties? how much wasteful spending for those

as stu said- it's a start. i hate the bailouts! hated the bailouts under bush, hate them under obama. i'm not happy with our government at all. i will hold my opinion of the obama presidency for a little longer, too soon to make any call.

[Lula]

i'm referencing the tea bags sent to d.c. i imagine more than a few beat cops were put on tea duty, but such is life. i'd much rather keep protests alive rather than worry about the cost to a city.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Bush had full congressional approval from day one. You know it. FISA and AUMF were all he needed. FISA explicitly says "the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted."

I see you are retroactively changing your original post faster than I can keep up with…

FISA does not allow the President to wiretap without a warrant.
It does permit the gov't to go back and get one later, but Bush didn't choose to do that either.
If Bush’s case was legally sound he should’ve used FISA as it existed or changed it.
He did neither and in fact, went around it.

Invoking AUMF to condone wiretapping is to say, in essence, that Presidential wartime powers are unlimited.
This is shit.
Truman tried to nationalize the steel mills during Korea and was slapped down by the courts.
You, the self-styled limited government conservative, are once again arguing to bestow the President with the powers of a king.
For a war without foreseeable end, like the War on Terror, this is beyond dangerous.

Also democrats passed the PAA (2007) allowing for said warrantless wiretapping.

Yes, the wiretaps were later brought in line with some form of law and public record, as I’ve already stated.
Admittedly, it's not perfect.

[RossValoryRocks]

Bush had full congressional approval from day one. You know it. FISA and AUMF were all he needed. FISA explicitly says "the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted."

I see you are retroactively changing your original post faster than I can keep up with…

FISA does not allow the President to wiretap without a warrant.
It does permit the gov't to go back and get one later, but Bush didn't choose to do that either.
If Bush’s case was legally sound he should’ve used FISA as it existed or changed it.
He did neither and in fact, went around it.

Invoking AUMF to condone wiretapping is to say, in essence, that Presidential wartime powers are unlimited.
This is shit.
Truman tried to nationalize the steel mills during Korea and was slapped down by the courts.
You, the self-styled limited government conservative, are once again arguing to bestow the President with the powers of a king.
For a war without foreseeable end, like the War on Terror, this is beyond dangerous.

Also democrats passed the PAA (2007) allowing for said warrantless wiretapping.

Yes, the wiretaps were later brought in line with some form of law and public record, as I’ve already stated.
Admittedly, it's not perfect.

No...I am not arguing FOR it...I am saying it was LEGAL from day one. Legal and MORALLY right are SELDOM the same thing.

[The_Noble_Cause]

No...I am not arguing FOR it...I am saying it was LEGAL from day one. Legal and MORALLY right are SELDOM the same thing.

Feelings are not facts.
Bush could either use FISA or change it.
He did neither, and saying "We're at war. The President can do ANYTHING!!!" is not a valid excuse.

[RossValoryRocks]

No...I am not arguing FOR it...I am saying it was LEGAL from day one. Legal and MORALLY right are SELDOM the same thing.

Feelings are not facts.
Bush could either use FISA or change it.
He did neither, and saying "We're at war. The President can do ANYTHING!!!" is not a valid excuse.

Actually that is EXACTLY what AUMF said.

What Bush did was LEGAL...PERIOD...if you disagree haul youself down to the local federal courthouse and file a suit saying so. That is not defending him, other than to say he had the power of law on his side at the time, just as Obama does.

Legal...yup...morally wrong...yup...are the laws as written probably unconstitutional? Yup...

[Rockindeano]

Going to force the Cabinet to cut $100 million in spending!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090420/ap_ ... r_wh/obama

That will have a HUGE impact. Good job!!

It's a START...I will give him props for it...I said I would be fair, unlike the libs, and will compliment or bash accordingly.

Neither Clinton nor Bush tried to cut shit. So Obama is one up on them here.

Clinton didn't cut government?

Look again.

Inherited another Bush disaster, left a surplus budget. Hmmm.

[RossValoryRocks]

Going to force the Cabinet to cut $100 million in spending!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090420/ap_ ... r_wh/obama

That will have a HUGE impact. Good job!!

It's a START...I will give him props for it...I said I would be fair, unlike the libs, and will compliment or bash accordingly.

Neither Clinton nor Bush tried to cut shit. So Obama is one up on them here.

Clinton didn't cut government?

Look again.

Inherited another Bush disaster, left a surplus budget. Hmmm.

You sure you 're a Poli Sci grad?? The Congress controlls the money...Poli Sci 101...hell...Grade School civics.

Congress balanced the budget...Congress cut spending...Clinton was FORCED to sign it, or risk looking like a tool when the Veto was overridden. Oh yeah...it was a REPUBLICAN congress...back when you could actually tell the difference between the parties.

I know you love Bill Clinton so much you asked Lewinsky if you could lick the stain on the dress, but trying to rewrite history is pathetic.

[Rockindeano]

LOL, ok professor.

Look, like it or not, Clinton was not a tax and spend Democrat. Look at the numbers. He was responsible and the numbers bear him out.

Now, who in the Hell would not want him back in office to fix this mess?

If you say "not me" you can go lay down on the Interstate.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Actually that is EXACTLY what AUMF said.

Authorizations for Use of Military Force.
Nowhere does it mention electronic surveillance or give the President the right to trump preexisting law.
FISA was even amended for the gov't as part of the Patriot Act.

What Bush did was LEGAL...PERIOD...if you disagree haul youself down to the local federal courthouse and file a suit saying so.

It already was found illegal and unconstitutional.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208982,00.html

That is not defending him, other than to say he had the power of law on his side at the time, just as Obama does.

If that's the case, then why were the telecomm companies granted retroactive immunity.
If it was all kosher, why did they need immunity? From what?
If it was all done strictly by the books, why didn't Bush go to Congress in the first place as he did with the Patriot Act?

[RossValoryRocks]

LOL, ok professor.

Look, like it or not, Clinton was not a tax and spend Democrat. Look at the numbers. He was responsible and the numbers bear him out.

Now, who in the Hell would not want him back in office to fix this mess?

If you say "not me" you can go lay down on the Interstate.

As long as Newt is back as speaker of the house with the Republican majorities to back him up.

A couple of government shutdowns aside, Newt and Bill Clinton worked well together.

However, during his first 2 years he was most certainly a tax and spend democrat. He was FORCED to become something akin to fiscal conservative because of the Republicans of the time.

The numbers, and the CONSTITUTION bear out the facts that Congress spends the money.

[RossValoryRocks]

Actually that is EXACTLY what AUMF said.

Authorizations for Use of Military Force.
Nowhere does it mention electronic surveillance or give the President the right to trump preexisting law.
FISA was even amended for the gov't as part of the Patriot Act.

What Bush did was LEGAL...PERIOD...if you disagree haul youself down to the local federal courthouse and file a suit saying so.

It already was found illegal and unconstitutional.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208982,00.html

That is not defending him, other than to say he had the power of law on his side at the time, just as Obama does.

If that's the case, then why were the telecomm companies granted retroactive immunity.
If it was all kosher, why did they need immunity? From what?
It was all by the books, why didn't Bush go to Congress in the first place as he did with the Patriot Act?

Why were they granted immunity?? Because ignorant fucks like you with more time than active brain cells will go all suit happy trying to make a dime and prove some point.

Ok...a district justice found in Unconstitutional, what did the Supremes say?? What is the status of the appeal?

AUMF: "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,"

The President has the authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent...enough said.

LEGAL.

You lose.

[Eric]

Eric, I wouldn't use Free Republic as a credible source. Rather, I'd use the links to the news stories they are commenting on. ie..NYTimes, WashPost etc.. Weird bunch over there. Damn near as cultish as the Obots @ DU are. I'll bet TNC thinks I'm to the right of the Free Republic crowd..

Any sane person left that place a long ago, trust me.

I just wanted to throw stuff from a bunch of different places...thanks for the heads up though.

[Eric]

Spin and gloss over these things all you want,..

You mean calling you out on your lies?

Name one?

How about suggesting that the Black Panthers are in any way working for Obama, for starters.

I didn't. The link said the DNC was involved.
I threw out an excessive link to combat your initial ridiculous storm trooper label. I then later said its really not reasonable to compare these administrations to the Nazi regime who kiilled 55 million people. So...where's my lie? We obviously throw a lot of profanity around at each other....but don't call me a liar.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Why were they granted immunity?? Because ignorant fucks like you with more time than active brain cells will go all suit happy trying to make a dime and prove some point.

So Clinton gets impeached to "uphold the rule of law" or some pompous shit, but Bush trampling FISA under the guise of the unitary executive (aka Bush = King) gets a pass?
You have now gone from saying Bush was following FISA, to Bush never spied domestically, to saying it was legal because of the AUMF.
At this point, you will clearly say anything to help Bush and the GOP dispose of the bodies.

AUMF: "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,"

The President has the authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent...enough said.

LEGAL.

You lose.

Hardly.
The Senate majority leader who helped write AUMF has said domestic surveillance was never even mentioned.
You also can't explain why Bush ignored FISA after having the Congress change it.
Just another Bush apologist whore.

[Rockindeano]

LOL, ok professor.

Look, like it or not, Clinton was not a tax and spend Democrat. Look at the numbers. He was responsible and the numbers bear him out.

Now, who in the Hell would not want him back in office to fix this mess?

If you say "not me" you can go lay down on the Interstate.

As long as Newt is back as speaker of the house with the Republican majorities to back him up.

A couple of government shutdowns aside, Newt and Bill Clinton worked well together.

However, during his first 2 years he was most certainly a tax and spend democrat. He was FORCED to become something akin to fiscal conservative because of the Republicans of the time.

The numbers, and the CONSTITUTION bear out the facts that Congress spends the money.

Please don't insult my intelligence. I am not stevew2 ok?

Look, Clinton indeed suffered from rookie mishandlings and overzealous aspirations(Health care overhaul in the first 2 years of office). The Congress was controlled by the Dems in Bill's first two years and I agree 100% that they fucked him over..in a way, I see a parallel to what's going on here now with Obama and his congress. The Congress or more pointedly, the party in power has the tendency to over-reach..Both parties have done it.

I KNOW who spends the Goddamned money Stu. Appropriations are made by Congress, but the president basically can twist a lot of arms and infuse much needed political capital, and Obama still has a great deal of it right now to get what he wants.

[Rockindeano]

Oh by the way Stu, Newt is all but running in 2012.

Pick up the latest Newsweek. The evidence is all there.

Obama versus Newt.

[The_Noble_Cause]

How about suggesting that the Black Panthers are in any way working for Obama, for starters.

I didn't. The link said the DNC was involved.

Oh, so you don't even believe your own bullshit!
Good to know.
When I post a link, usually I am prepared to defend the info contained within.
But maybe that's just me.
If you don't believe the Black Panthers accusation to be true, then why post it?

I threw out an excessive link to combat your initial ridiculous storm trooper label.

Nothing ridiculous about it.
Under Bush, the GOP has morphed into the pro-torture, pro-wiretap, pro-war party.
All symptoms of a police state.

[RossValoryRocks]

Why were they granted immunity?? Because ignorant fucks like you with more time than active brain cells will go all suit happy trying to make a dime and prove some point.

So Clinton gets impeached to "uphold the rule of law" or some pompous shit, but Bush trampling FISA under the guise of the unitary executive (aka Bush = King) gets a pass?
You have now gone from saying Bush was following FISA, to Bush never spied domestically, to saying it was legal because of the AUMF.
At this point, you will clearly say anything to help Bush and the GOP dispose of the bodies.

AUMF: "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,"

The President has the authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent...enough said.

LEGAL.

You lose.

Hardly.
The Senate majority leader who helped write AUMF has said domestic surveillance was never even mentioned.
You also can't explain why Bush ignored FISA after having the Congress change it.
Just another Bush apologist whore.

Better than licking the crotch of what ever lib happens to be speaking at the moment.

Again...as I said...is (even as written now) unconstitutional, yup, but at the time and now (until SCOTUS says different) it is LEGAL.

You are so bent on vilifying Bush you can't even see your arguments are nonsense.

Oh...and what I said was they have never spied domesitically (PROVE IT IF I AM WRONG FIND ONE CASE where that has been brought to court saying a US citizen was wiretapped, you can't because there is no such case), but they could have spied on ANY OF US, if they thought it was in the interest of the US, and guess what...they STILL CAN.

I don't care that Clinton got impeach for lying under oath, what he did was BLATANTLY illegal, backed years and years and years of precedent. What Bush did was probably unconstitutional, but as the law were (and are) written LEGAL.

Abortion is the opposite, the law said it was illegal, but the Constitution says otherwise so the law was struck down.

Eventually this law will be to, but until it is and what was done, and is being done is LEGAL.

You cannot argue the fact as the law was and is written Bush was on firm legal ground. You are wrong wrong wrong. Man up and admit it.

If you want to say what he did was immoral, ok...I'm with you, you want to go get a lawyer and say it is unconstitutional, I with you there too...but right now, 6 months ago, 6 years ago, it is, and was completely legal.

[RossValoryRocks]

LOL, ok professor.

Look, like it or not, Clinton was not a tax and spend Democrat. Look at the numbers. He was responsible and the numbers bear him out.

Now, who in the Hell would not want him back in office to fix this mess?

If you say "not me" you can go lay down on the Interstate.

As long as Newt is back as speaker of the house with the Republican majorities to back him up.

A couple of government shutdowns aside, Newt and Bill Clinton worked well together.

However, during his first 2 years he was most certainly a tax and spend democrat. He was FORCED to become something akin to fiscal conservative because of the Republicans of the time.

The numbers, and the CONSTITUTION bear out the facts that Congress spends the money.

Please don't insult my intelligence. I am not stevew2 ok?

Look, Clinton indeed suffered from rookie mishandlings and overzealous aspirations(Health care overhaul in the first 2 years of office). The Congress was controlled by the Dems in Bill's first two years and I agree 100% that they fucked him over..in a way, I see a parallel to what's going on here now with Obama and his congress. The Congress or more pointedly, the party in power has the tendency to over-reach..Both parties have done it.

I KNOW who spends the Goddamned money Stu. Appropriations are made by Congress, but the president basically can twist a lot of arms and infuse much needed political capital, and Obama still has a great deal of it right now to get what he wants.

In '94 Clinton HAD NO POLITICAL CAPITAL to spend. At the time everyone was saying 1 and DONE! But the congress got the shit together, Clinton took credit, and Newt and Bill were getting along so well the Repubicans ran Dole as a way of saying, "Thanks for the memories" and to put him to pasture.

The Republicans, the true fiscally conservatives, not the republican-lights that are out there today did everything and Clinton took the credit (As the Presidents do, both good and bad credit).

But to say Clinton ever actually cut anything is patently ridiculous.

[RossValoryRocks]

How about suggesting that the Black Panthers are in any way working for Obama, for starters.

I didn't. The link said the DNC was involved.

Oh, so you don't even believe your own bullshit!
Good to know.
When I post a link, usually I am prepared to defend the info contained within.
But maybe that's just me.
If you don't believe the Black Panthers accusation to be true, then why post it?

I threw out an excessive link to combat your initial ridiculous storm trooper label.

Nothing ridiculous about it.
Under Bush, the GOP has morphed into the pro-torture, pro-wiretap, pro-war party.
All symptoms of a police state.

I just realized that you are a pussy. Should have hit me sooner but sometimes I am a slow learner.

ROFLMAO! Easy...conscientious objector maybe...pussy is a bit harsh...he is fearing a Kristallnacht...but as he is good lib, they won't bother him.

I fear a government who wants to take away free speech (Fairness Doctrine) and firearms (any new gun control law)...the two most important rights the citizens have to defend themselves against government tyranny. Strapping the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11 to a board and giving him a good dunking doesn't scare me in the least.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I fear a government who wants to take away free speech (Fairness Doctrine)

Which you understand about as well as FISA.
Get Angie in here and ask about Arbitron ratings.
What we have now is anything but free speech.

Strapping the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11 to a board and giving him a good dunking doesn't scare me in the least.

Of course not.
You've already established you don't care about the rule of law.