Obama Impeachment

[obyknven]

Judging by what Fox News has been saying about him, yup.

 

 

When you are saying on national TV that Putin is a better leader than Obama because he wants to kill everyone and Obama doesn't...

 

O'rly. Obama kill much more people by own small wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, drone attacks everywhere), than Vlad. Actually after Russian Crimean performance any US/NATO war looks like bloody massacre performed by maniacs. 

[Guard Dog]

You know what becomes really tiresome about the political discussions on this board? Some of the folks here (not all or even most but many) seem to truly believe the people who's politics are in opposition to theirs really are nothing more that one dimensional cartoon villains. Republicans hate minorities, democrats are communists, fox news is evil, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of throwing around hyperbole for the sake of good forum chatter but I think with most of us it's plain when the tongue is in cheek and when it isn't. Some other folks, I'm not sure it ever is.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Lots of Democrats really are communists, not all, but the far left wing.

 

Also @Calax, executive orders are OK if they are orders to the government, but unlawful if they're used to change laws. That's the issue here, Obama is ruling by decree, not by law.

 

Edit: Speaking of Republican candidates, here's an interesting article : http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/rand-paul-america-hates-liberterians-104858.html#.UzDxtcJOV9B

 

I disagree though, Paul can win. The reason is the amazing human ability to hold 2 contradictory opinions at once.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

Lots of Democrats really are communists, not all, but the far left wing.

 

Also @Calax, executive orders are OK if they are orders to the government, but unlawful if they're used to change laws. That's the issue here, Obama is ruling by decree, not by law.

 

Edit: Speaking of Republican candidates, here's an interesting article : http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/rand-paul-america-hates-liberterians-104858.html#.UzDxtcJOV9B

 

I disagree though, Paul can win. The reason is the amazing human ability to hold 2 contradictory opinions at once.

Can I just ask, what has Obama actually used executive orders to do that's outside his mandate as president?

 

I'm serious, because as far as I can tell, you've all gone nuts because he said that he will try to govern without congress because Congress won't get it's head out of it's collective ass.

[Bryy]

You know what becomes really tiresome about the political discussions on this board? Some of the folks here (not all or even most but many) seem to truly believe the people who's politics are in opposition to theirs really are nothing more that one dimensional cartoon villains. Republicans hate minorities, democrats are communists, fox news is evil, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of throwing around hyperbole for the sake of good forum chatter but I think with most of us it's plain when the tongue is in cheek and when it isn't. Some other folks, I'm not sure it ever is.

Fox News isn't evil, they just have an agenda; and that is to spread as much bull**** about whoever is against Republican views as possible.

[BruceVC]

 

You know what becomes really tiresome about the political discussions on this board? Some of the folks here (not all or even most but many) seem to truly believe the people who's politics are in opposition to theirs really are nothing more that one dimensional cartoon villains. Republicans hate minorities, democrats are communists, fox news is evil, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of throwing around hyperbole for the sake of good forum chatter but I think with most of us it's plain when the tongue is in cheek and when it isn't. Some other folks, I'm not sure it ever is.

Fox News isn't evil, they just have an agenda; and that is to spread as much bull**** about whoever is against Republican views as possible.

 

 

 

You know what becomes really tiresome about the political discussions on this board? Some of the folks here (not all or even most but many) seem to truly believe the people who's politics are in opposition to theirs really are nothing more that one dimensional cartoon villains. Republicans hate minorities, democrats are communists, fox news is evil, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of throwing around hyperbole for the sake of good forum chatter but I think with most of us it's plain when the tongue is in cheek and when it isn't. Some other folks, I'm not sure it ever is.

Fox News isn't evil, they just have an agenda; and that is to spread as much bull**** about whoever is against Republican views as possible.

 

This is fundamentally true, GD I would really like you and any others to read the book below. You'll see exactly how Roger Ailes was able to manipulate millions of Americans along certain ideological lines. Yes the liberal news channels also do this but Fox were the first ones to do it and are arguably still the best at it

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Loudest-Voice-Room-News/dp/0812992857

[Bartimaeus]

 are arguably still the best at it

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Loudest-Voice-Room-News/dp/0812992857

 

 

Hm. Everyone seems to assume that the Republican Party is bought and paid for - yet there seem to be many that don't realize the same about the Democrats. I would warrant that that makes them the superior propagandist of the two...but maybe that's just me.

[BruceVC]

 

 are arguably still the best at it

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Loudest-Voice-Room-News/dp/0812992857

 

 

Hm. Everyone seems to assume that the Republican Party is bought and paid for - yet there seem to be many that don't realize the same about the Democrats. I would warrant that that makes them the superior propagandist of the two...but maybe that's just me.

 

 

You should read this book Barti, it doesn't discuss who controls the various political parties in the USA but rather how FOX news has been able to influence the news and a certain ideology through an orchestrated campaign. You will know some of it but its worth reading

[Guard Dog]

 

 

You know what becomes really tiresome about the political discussions on this board? Some of the folks here (not all or even most but many) seem to truly believe the people who's politics are in opposition to theirs really are nothing more that one dimensional cartoon villains. Republicans hate minorities, democrats are communists, fox news is evil, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of throwing around hyperbole for the sake of good forum chatter but I think with most of us it's plain when the tongue is in cheek and when it isn't. Some other folks, I'm not sure it ever is.

Fox News isn't evil, they just have an agenda; and that is to spread as much bull**** about whoever is against Republican views as possible.

 

 

 

You know what becomes really tiresome about the political discussions on this board? Some of the folks here (not all or even most but many) seem to truly believe the people who's politics are in opposition to theirs really are nothing more that one dimensional cartoon villains. Republicans hate minorities, democrats are communists, fox news is evil, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of throwing around hyperbole for the sake of good forum chatter but I think with most of us it's plain when the tongue is in cheek and when it isn't. Some other folks, I'm not sure it ever is.

Fox News isn't evil, they just have an agenda; and that is to spread as much bull**** about whoever is against Republican views as possible.

 

This is fundamentally true, GD I would really like you and any others to read the book below. You'll see exactly how Roger Ailes was able to manipulate millions of Americans along certain ideological lines. Yes the liberal news channels also do this but Fox were the first ones to do it and are arguably still the best at it

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Loudest-Voice-Room-News/dp/0812992857

 

Fox news is the first? LOL, have you never heard of Walter Cronkite? Dan Rather? Heck the latter got CAUGHT going on air with a story he knew to be untrue just to discredit a republican pol. Bruce, ALL news is biased. IMO there is not single credible unbiased news source in the USA today. There hasn't been in a long time. And bias can be found in not just what is reported but in what the sources choose not to report. You guys are down on fox news because they don't support your "team" so to speak. It's funny, I never hear any criticism of the opposite end of the spectrum MSNBC who is unabashedly left wing. They have dropped all pretense of being unbiased.

 

And believe me, folks here know the media is biased. All of it. We are not so blind to not recognize a load of crap when it's being pushed on us... most of us at least. That fact that we know what we're buying and buy it anyway (Fox News is the most successful and watched news source in the USA after all) is just another symptom of the "political tribalism"  going on here these past 25 years.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

You know what becomes really tiresome about the political discussions on this board? Some of the folks here (not all or even most but many) seem to truly believe the people who's politics are in opposition to theirs really are nothing more that one dimensional cartoon villains. Republicans hate minorities, democrats are communists, fox news is evil, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of throwing around hyperbole for the sake of good forum chatter but I think with most of us it's plain when the tongue is in cheek and when it isn't. Some other folks, I'm not sure it ever is.

Fox News isn't evil, they just have an agenda; and that is to spread as much bull**** about whoever is against Republican views as possible.

 

 

 

You know what becomes really tiresome about the political discussions on this board? Some of the folks here (not all or even most but many) seem to truly believe the people who's politics are in opposition to theirs really are nothing more that one dimensional cartoon villains. Republicans hate minorities, democrats are communists, fox news is evil, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of throwing around hyperbole for the sake of good forum chatter but I think with most of us it's plain when the tongue is in cheek and when it isn't. Some other folks, I'm not sure it ever is.

Fox News isn't evil, they just have an agenda; and that is to spread as much bull**** about whoever is against Republican views as possible.

 

This is fundamentally true, GD I would really like you and any others to read the book below. You'll see exactly how Roger Ailes was able to manipulate millions of Americans along certain ideological lines. Yes the liberal news channels also do this but Fox were the first ones to do it and are arguably still the best at it

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Loudest-Voice-Room-News/dp/0812992857

 

Fox news is the first? LOL, have you never heard of Walter Cronkite? Dan Rather? Heck the latter got CAUGHT going on air with a story he knew to be untrue just to discredit a republican pol. Bruce, ALL news is biased. IMO there is not single credible unbiased news source in the USA today. There hasn't been in a long time. And bias can be found in not just what is reported but in what the sources choose not to report. You guys are down on fox news because they don't support your "team" so to speak. It's funny, I never hear any criticism of the opposite end of the spectrum MSNBC who is unabashedly left wing. They have dropped all pretense of being unbiased.

 

And believe me, folks here know the media is biased. All of it. We are not so blind to not recognize a load of crap when it's being pushed on us... most of us at least. That fact that we know what we're buying and buy it anyway (Fox News is the most successful and watched news source in the USA after all) is just another symptom of the "political tribalism"  going on here these past 25 years.

 

 

Okay good points raised but I don't see all the international news channels as biased. In South Africa we don't have MSNBC on my cable selection so I can't comment. But I watch CNN international, Sky News and BBC World and those channels do represent both sides of debates and political issues in most cases.

 

Also you say that "Fox News is the most successful and watched news source in the USA after all" , but aren't you interested in how it became so successful? You should read that book I linked

[Hassat Hunter]

but aren't you interested in how it became so successful?

I don't need a book for that...

 

"Most Americans are stupid"

 

There we go, was that so hard?

[kgambit]

 .....   but he still hasn't flat out widened any war..

 

You don't remember the troop surge? 

 

Look at this:

 

 

He increased troop levels twice during his presidency.   According to military reports, about 38,000 total U.S. personnel are in country which means current troop deployments are still higher than when he took office. 

Edited March 25, 2014 by kgambit

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You know what becomes really tiresome about the political discussions on this board? Some of the folks here (not all or even most but many) seem to truly believe the people who's politics are in opposition to theirs really are nothing more that one dimensional cartoon villains. Republicans hate minorities, democrats are communists, fox news is evil, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of throwing around hyperbole for the sake of good forum chatter but I think with most of us it's plain when the tongue is in cheek and when it isn't. Some other folks, I'm not sure it ever is.

Doctor Obamapus would make a fantastic super-villain.

[Calax]

 

 .....   but he still hasn't flat out widened any war..

 

You don't remember the troop surge? 

 

Look at this:

 

 

He increased troop levels twice during his presidency.   According to military reports, about 38,000 total U.S. personnel are in country which means current troop deployments are still higher than when he took office. 

 

Huh, didn't know that. It's still balanced out by the fact that he ended Iraq IMO, but that does count as "widening the war".

[kgambit]

 

Huh, didn't know that. It's still balanced out by the fact that he ended Iraq IMO, but that does count as "widening the war".

 

 

 Obama's troop withdrawal in Iraq beat by two weeks an already mandated Dec 31, 2011 troop withdrawal.   

 

The status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, was signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established the following timelines:

 

Article 5:      ......  June 30, 2009, the appointed date for U.S. Forces withdrawal from cities, towns and villages.

 

Article 24:    All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/18/56116/unofficial-translation-of-us-iraq.html

 

So Obama didn't do anything more than adhere to the pre-existing conditions of the SOFA. 

 

As a matter of fact, the Obama administration was actually engaged in negotiations to extend the SOFA (and US troop deployments) beyond 2011 but those negotiations broke down.  It was the Iraq government which killed the deal not the US.   The Iraqis refused to grant immunity for US Troops after 2011 and to submit a new SOFA through their own parliament, two conditions that the US demanded in order to extend the troop deployments beyond Dec, 2011. 

 

 

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/

 

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/11/iraqi_politicians_backed_into.php

Edited March 25, 2014 by kgambit

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Lots of Democrats really are communists, not all, but the far left wing.

 

Also @Calax, executive orders are OK if they are orders to the government, but unlawful if they're used to change laws. That's the issue here, Obama is ruling by decree, not by law.

 

Edit: Speaking of Republican candidates, here's an interesting article : http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/rand-paul-america-hates-liberterians-104858.html#.UzDxtcJOV9B

 

I disagree though, Paul can win. The reason is the amazing human ability to hold 2 contradictory opinions at once.

Can I just ask, what has Obama actually used executive orders to do that's outside his mandate as president?

 

I'm serious, because as far as I can tell, you've all gone nuts because he said that he will try to govern without congress because Congress won't get it's head out of it's collective ass.

 

I never mentioned executive orders, you did. For one thing, he delayed or changed Obamacare something like 35 times without getting Congressional authorization. My favorite though is when he told banks to go ahead and take drug dealer money, even though that's totally illegal under Federal law.

[Valsuelm]

I never mentioned executive orders, you did. For one thing, he delayed or changed Obamacare something like 35 times without getting Congressional authorization. My favorite though is when he told banks to go ahead and take drug dealer money, even though that's totally illegal under Federal law.

 

 

What drug dealer money are you referring to? I missed that one.

 

Unless you're referring to the administration's decision to not enforce various laws that prohibit banks from dealing with any marijuana seller on legal marijuana stores in the states that have made marijuana legal. The federal government really doesn't constitutionally have the power to do that anyways (though they've certainly been doing it for awhile now).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If every conspiracy theory about Obama is correct, how does he manage to be a fascist communist corporatist secular muslim zionist? Seems like a lot of work for one guy.

[Valsuelm]

 

So because I'm not an American I automatically don't know anything about the strengths and weaknesses of the Obama presidency, thats a new low even for you. But irrelevant to what I said. Her diatribe about why Obama has been the worst president in the history of the USA consists of a few truths, subjective opinions and factual untruths.

 

You now need to go through each of my points and explain why I am so misinformed and why I need to read the American constitution in order to make what I posted relevant . Good luck with trying to redefine the truth in your book

 

 

I told you I'd follow up, and you should re-read what I wrote again, I didn't sink to the low you think I did.

 

So here In very brief are some retorts, again in very brief because as I mentioned each of the topics could easily be their own threads, and some have been already.

 

    she says "Obama shouldn't have bailed out the banks". Despite the fact that the USA banking institutions have recovered from 2008 and almost all economic experts agree that intervention from the federal government was necessary to prevent a global depression

 

 

Well, it wasn't just Obama that 'bailed out the banks'. It took Congress and Bush and many other had a hand too. And no, it didn't prevent a global depression. Obviously, you don't understand much about what goes on with the Federal Reserve, banks, derivatives, the widespread mortgage fraud, where that money actually went, etc. It's a huge subject. But in very short, no, the 'banks' and the evil effers who own them should not have been 'bailed' out. It was possibly the largest heist in recorded history, and the fallout of it has yet to be fully felt.

 

 

  She is convinced of the failure of Obamacare, yet we still need to see the result

 

 

When someone pulls their pants down, sits down on a toilet and lets their bowls loose, we don't need to see the result to know what came out. I suppose you could get really specific with it and do some studies on what comes out, measuring density, pliability, odor, etc, but in the end it's essentially all the same.

 

Read the bill yourself and you can see a number of things fundamentally wrong with it, some of which has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. But you won't do that. You'd rather tell us Americans how we're wrong to have issues with 'Obamacare' when you fundamentally don't understand what some of those issues are nor bother to read the actual bill to see if it's even good. You'd rather dismiss what the girl says rather than research some of what she shows in her video yourself, because that's easy right? And it flies in the face of the beliefs you've allowed yourself to be given. Just let the talking heads at the BBC and CNN tell you what to think right? Just not the ones at RT.

 

Anyways, 'Obamacare' is now four years old, and many of the results are already in, and it's a failure in almost every way. There are many results though that we won't see for years yet. Anyone thinking Obamacare is a success has stock in an insurance company, is totally deluded, or is evil. Not to mention much of 'Obamacare *is* unconstitutional on a couple different levels, no matter what our incredibly corrupt supreme court says. How it even came to be was unconstitutional (though it's not alone in that, it's the norm and has been for awhile on capital hill these days to ignore Constitutional guidelines on how bills are supposed to be generated).

 

And I realize you probably give two flying effers about the U.S. Constitution, our rights over here, and the rule of law, but the legal precedent set in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius is potentially the most damaging to individual freedom and enabling of federal power precendent to be set since Wickard v. Filburn. Not that you're familiar with U.S. Constitutional law.

 

But really, she never said she was convinced it was a failure. She just mentioned who will benefit, and that Obama's administration colluded with insurance companies on 'Obamacare', which they did.

 

She says Obama expanded Bush's wars, yet the USA is out of Iraq and has a deadline in Afghanistan. Obama has done a lot to reduce the military investment in various conflicts around the world  and has avoided starting other wars, like in Syria and Iran

 

 

We are not out of Iraq. We definitely still have a military presence there (look up our 'embassy' for example), albeit it somewhat officially diminished. The withdrawal of those troops was the result of something Bush signed, not Obama. Obama actually tried to officially extend the length that overt occupation would last beyond what the Bush administration agreed to, but the Iraqis wouldn't have it. We still have thousands stationed at our embassy there alone, as well as personal in various other places in Iraq.

 

Also, he has not avoided starting other wars. There's Libya for one, and his administration tried their damnedest to start something in Syria. Public outcry and some interesting diplomacy by some nations such as Russia thwarted that, for now.

 

 

 

She thinks killing known Al-Qaeda operatives is wrong

 

    

In the case of some, it is. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (the one she cites) it definitely is. First, there's *zero* evidence in the public domain that he was associated with Al-Qaeda at all. The evidence that is in the public domain paints a pretty clear picture that Anwar was probably anything but an 'Al-Qaeda' operative, what's left of it that is. In the days after he was killed a lot of his videos and documents written by him on the internet were taken down, and if you saw some of them before they were like I did you'd know it's because they totally fly in the face of what was told to everyone on the news. But that aside.

 

For the sake of argument let's assume that there was some evidence that Anwar and Samir were Al-Qaeda operatives. As U.S. citizens they were entitled to a number of basic rights, not the least of which is a trial by jury, and the ability to face their accusers. Instead, they were murdered at the behest of the Obama administration and with Obama's blessing. There might not be a better example of how evil Obama is, and how desperately lost so many in the U.S. are to actually think what was done is ok. If you want something to impeach Obama on, this is it. He broke numerous laws, and sanctioned the complete violation of an individuals rights. But it's ok right? Because the guys killed were Muslim, and spoke out against some of what the U.S. was doing, and because the U.S. government said he Anwar was bad (nevermind they provided absolutely zero evidence, and Samir was just collateral damage).

 

Maybe you're cool with your government just saying someone is bad and then going off and killing them without offering proof, but I'm not. Especially when the evidence out there tends to paint a different picture, and said government has a history of lying.

 

She thinks people like Snowden are heroes, despite the fact he comprised and still does the security of the USA

 

   

While I personally wouldn't call Snowden a hero for reasons that go beyond what most people think he did, he did not compromise the security of the USA in any way. And if all he did was what many people think he did, expose the mass corruption and mass violation of various rights of U.S. and foreign citizens, then yes, he is a hero. Anyone thinking otherwise is a statist, doesn't understand or appreciate the natural rights they have codified in the U.S. Consititution, and/or is evil.

 

The girl in the video doesn't call Snowden a hero either, she calls him a 'whistleblower', which he is whether you agree with what he did or not, and she points out that Obama pledged to protect whistleblowers such as Snowden and Bradley Manning, which he did prior to being elected.

 

She thinks that Obama personally doesn't want to close Guantanamo Bay

 

If Obama really wanted to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay, it would be closed. He promised during his campaign it would be, he lied.

    

 

Where in the USA have protests been criminalized ?

 

 

All over. Off the top of my head pretty much any WTO event, many of the 'Occupy Wall Street' events (look them up on youtube), wherever the president happens to be, and at other places, In the last decade or so there's been these things called 'free speech zones' popping up at campuses all over the U.S. and in some governmental jurisdictions. That alone really tells you all you need to know about how precarious a place the 1st amendment is in the U.S. and she is no doubt in part referring to  HR, 347.

 

 

 

She says that Obama and his fellow politicians spread hate and she would rather spread love and not restrict people from achieving there potential. What does this even mean, where is the substance in what she is saying

 

 

I'm really not sure how to interpret it for you Bruce. It's pretty straight forward. As someone who comes of as ever the optimist (albeit on heck of a gullible one) I would think you could relate to what she said. Positivity over Negativity!

 

Anyways Bruce, I probably spent too much time on this, as I doubt you'll do any homework based on what I wrote here, as you didn't based on what the girl in the video said, and don't ever seem to based on what anyone in these forums say. In contrast when I watch a video I just about always do my homework on it if it tells me something I haven't yet heard or haven't yet researched.

 

You should get a job at CNN or the BBC, or join someone's PR department. You've got those skills.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

So because I'm not an American I automatically don't know anything about the strengths and weaknesses of the Obama presidency, thats a new low even for you. But irrelevant to what I said. Her diatribe about why Obama has been the worst president in the history of the USA consists of a few truths, subjective opinions and factual untruths.

 

You now need to go through each of my points and explain why I am so misinformed and why I need to read the American constitution in order to make what I posted relevant . Good luck with trying to redefine the truth in your book

 

 

I told you I'd follow up, and you should re-read what I wrote again, I didn't sink to the low you think I did.

 

So here In very brief are some retorts, again in very brief because as I mentioned each of the topics could easily be their own threads, and some have been already.

 

    she says "Obama shouldn't have bailed out the banks". Despite the fact that the USA banking institutions have recovered from 2008 and almost all economic experts agree that intervention from the federal government was necessary to prevent a global depression

 

 

Well, it wasn't just Obama that 'bailed out the banks'. It took Congress and Bush and many other had a hand too. And no, it didn't prevent a global depression. Obviously, you don't understand much about what goes on with the Federal Reserve, banks, derivatives, the widespread mortgage fraud, where that money actually went, etc. It's a huge subject. But in very short, no, the 'banks' and the evil effers who own them should not have been 'bailed' out. It was possibly the largest heist in recorded history, and the fallout of it has yet to be fully felt.

 

 

  She is convinced of the failure of Obamacare, yet we still need to see the result

 

 

When someone pulls their pants down, sits down on a toilet and lets their bowls loose, we don't need to see the result to know what came out. I suppose you could get really specific with it and do some studies on what comes out, measuring density, pliability, odor, etc, but in the end it's essentially all the same.

 

Read the bill yourself and you can see a number of things fundamentally wrong with it, some of which has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. But you won't do that. You'd rather tell us Americans how we're wrong to have issues with 'Obamacare' when you fundamentally don't understand what some of those issues are nor bother to read the actual bill to see if it's even good. You'd rather dismiss what the girl says rather than research some of what she shows in her video yourself, because that's easy right? And it flies in the face of the beliefs you've allowed yourself to be given. Just let the talking heads at the BBC and CNN tell you what to think right? Just not the ones at RT.

 

Anyways, 'Obamacare' is now four years old, and many of the results are already in, and it's a failure in almost every way. There are many results though that we won't see for years yet. Anyone thinking Obamacare is a success has stock in an insurance company, is totally deluded, or is evil. Not to mention much of 'Obamacare *is* unconstitutional on a couple different levels, no matter what our incredibly corrupt supreme court says. How it even came to be was unconstitutional (though it's not alone in that, it's the norm and has been for awhile on capital hill these days to ignore Constitutional guidelines on how bills are supposed to be generated).

 

And I realize you probably give two flying effers about the U.S. Constitution, our rights over here, and the rule of law, but the legal precedent set in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius is potentially the most damaging to individual freedom and enabling of federal power precendent to be set since Wickard v. Filburn. Not that you're familiar with U.S. Constitutional law.

 

But really, she never said she was convinced it was a failure. She just mentioned who will benefit, and that Obama's administration colluded with insurance companies on 'Obamacare', which they did.

 

She says Obama expanded Bush's wars, yet the USA is out of Iraq and has a deadline in Afghanistan. Obama has done a lot to reduce the military investment in various conflicts around the world  and has avoided starting other wars, like in Syria and Iran

 

 

We are not out of Iraq. We definitely still have a military presence there (look up our 'embassy' for example), albeit it somewhat officially diminished. The withdrawal of those troops was the result of something Bush signed, not Obama. Obama actually tried to officially extend the length that overt occupation would last beyond what the Bush administration agreed to, but the Iraqis wouldn't have it. We still have thousands stationed at our embassy there alone, as well as personal in various other places in Iraq.

 

Also, he has not avoided starting other wars. There's Libya for one, and his administration tried their damnedest to start something in Syria. Public outcry and some interesting diplomacy by some nations such as Russia thwarted that, for now.

 

 

 

She thinks killing known Al-Qaeda operatives is wrong

 

    

In the case of some, it is. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (the one she cites) it definitely is. First, there's *zero* evidence in the public domain that he was associated with Al-Qaeda at all. The evidence that is in the public domain paints a pretty clear picture that Anwar was probably anything but an 'Al-Qaeda' operative, what's left of it that is. In the days after he was killed a lot of his videos and documents written by him on the internet were taken down, and if you saw some of them before they were like I did you'd know it's because they totally fly in the face of what was told to everyone on the news. But that aside.

 

For the sake of argument let's assume that there was some evidence that Anwar and Samir were Al-Qaeda operatives. As U.S. citizens they were entitled to a number of basic rights, not the least of which is a trial by jury, and the ability to face their accusers. Instead, they were murdered at the behest of the Obama administration and with Obama's blessing. There might not be a better example of how evil Obama is, and how desperately lost so many in the U.S. are to actually think what was done is ok. If you want something to impeach Obama on, this is it. He broke numerous laws, and sanctioned the complete violation of an individuals rights. But it's ok right? Because the guys killed were Muslim, and spoke out against some of what the U.S. was doing, and because the U.S. government said he Anwar was bad (nevermind they provided absolutely zero evidence, and Samir was just collateral damage).

 

Maybe you're cool with your government just saying someone is bad and then going off and killing them without offering proof, but I'm not. Especially when the evidence out there tends to paint a different picture, and said government has a history of lying.

 

She thinks people like Snowden are heroes, despite the fact he comprised and still does the security of the USA

 

   

While I personally wouldn't call Snowden a hero for reasons that go beyond what most people think he did, he did not compromise the security of the USA in any way. And if all he did was what many people think he did, expose the mass corruption and mass violation of various rights of U.S. and foreign citizens, then yes, he is a hero. Anyone thinking otherwise is a statist, doesn't understand or appreciate the natural rights they have codified in the U.S. Consititution, and/or is evil.

 

The girl in the video doesn't call Snowden a hero either, she calls him a 'whistleblower', which he is whether you agree with what he did or not, and she points out that Obama pledged to protect whistleblowers such as Snowden and Bradley Manning, which he did prior to being elected.

 

She thinks that Obama personally doesn't want to close Guantanamo Bay

 

If Obama really wanted to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay, it would be closed. He promised during his campaign it would be, he lied.

    

 

Where in the USA have protests been criminalized ?

 

 

All over. Off the top of my head pretty much any WTO event, many of the 'Occupy Wall Street' events (look them up on youtube), wherever the president happens to be, and at other places, In the last decade or so there's been these things called 'free speech zones' popping up at campuses all over the U.S. and in some governmental jurisdictions. That alone really tells you all you need to know about how precarious a place the 1st amendment is in the U.S. and she is no doubt in part referring to  HR, 347.

 

 

 

She says that Obama and his fellow politicians spread hate and she would rather spread love and not restrict people from achieving there potential. What does this even mean, where is the substance in what she is saying

 

 

I'm really not sure how to interpret it for you Bruce. It's pretty straight forward. As someone who comes of as ever the optimist (albeit on heck of a gullible one) I would think you could relate to what she said. Positivity over Negativity!

 

Anyways Bruce, I probably spent too much time on this, as I doubt you'll do any homework based on what I wrote here, as you didn't based on what the girl in the video said, and don't ever seem to based on what anyone in these forums say. In contrast when I watch a video I just about always do my homework on it if it tells me something I haven't yet heard or haven't yet researched.

 

You should get a job at CNN or the BBC, or join someone's PR department. You've got those skills.

 

Thanks Valsuelm, I appreciate the time you took to respond. I don't agree with most of what you said but I also don't want to spend anymore time debating this particular topic. There are other things that I need to spend time on. But we can continue this discussion at a later stage

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You know what becomes really tiresome about the political discussions on this board? Some of the folks here (not all or even most but many) seem to truly believe the people who's politics are in opposition to theirs really are nothing more that one dimensional cartoon villains. Republicans hate minorities, democrats are communists, fox news is evil, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of throwing around hyperbole for the sake of good forum chatter but I think with most of us it's plain when the tongue is in cheek and when it isn't. Some other folks, I'm not sure it ever is.

If I may respond to this in a slightly more serious manner, I think one of the hardest things to come to grips with is that those who disagree with you aren't necessarily evil, ignorant and uninformed, stupid, or deluded. The realization that someone can disagree with you for reasons that are well-intentioned and thought out is a bitter pill to swallow, but is something that people benefit from understanding.

 

I probably disagree with you on more than a few matters GD, but I won't insult you by implying that the reason you hold those differing beliefs is because you don't have all the facts or haven't thought things through or are a heartless bastard.

 

Now on the two major parties in the US: I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that they're both ideologically Authoritarian Corporatists. They may attack personal freedoms from different angles and coddle big business in different manners, but they both do it just the same.

 

I'll go back to cracking jokes and trolling now.

[Calax]

Also, he has not avoided starting other wars. There's Libya for one, and his administration tried their damnedest to start something in Syria. Public outcry and some interesting diplomacy by some nations such as Russia thwarted that, for now.

 

Gonna stop ya right there kiddo. If anything the republicans in congress wanted us to get into Syria, NOT the President. You didn't see Obama standing there next to two known terrorists and saying "we should support these guys" (That was McCain btw) and the "tricky diplomacy" you cite is one for the Chemical weapons that Obama was slow to act on in the first place (their use anyway). 

 

And Libya he didn't start. That was the consulate being attacked and then a popular uprising against Quaddaffi's regime. It WAS NOT some sort of inside job/false flag op to get us to go scrambling into Libya, and at best all we've done is impose a no-fly zone over the area (which G. H.W. Bush didn't have happen over Iraq after 1991's war which led to Saddams control of the region continuing.... I **** you not), and Skippy? that no-fly zone was UN santioned. Also right now Libya has 0 control as a nation because of the uprising in 2011 and is a bit of a lawless spot.

 

Now HOW THE **** did you think that Obama was a warmongering yahoo that wanted to go to Syria and had us "fighting a war" in Libya?

[BruceVC]

 

Also, he has not avoided starting other wars. There's Libya for one, and his administration tried their damnedest to start something in Syria. Public outcry and some interesting diplomacy by some nations such as Russia thwarted that, for now.

 

Gonna stop ya right there kiddo. If anything the republicans in congress wanted us to get into Syria, NOT the President. You didn't see Obama standing there next to two known terrorists and saying "we should support these guys" (That was McCain btw) and the "tricky diplomacy" you cite is one for the Chemical weapons that Obama was slow to act on in the first place (their use anyway). 

 

And Libya he didn't start. That was the consulate being attacked and then a popular uprising against Quaddaffi's regime. It WAS NOT some sort of inside job/false flag op to get us to go scrambling into Libya, and at best all we've done is impose a no-fly zone over the area (which G. H.W. Bush didn't have happen over Iraq after 1991's war which led to Saddams control of the region continuing.... I **** you not), and Skippy? that no-fly zone was UN santioned. Also right now Libya has 0 control as a nation because of the uprising in 2011 and is a bit of a lawless spot.

 

Now HOW THE **** did you think that Obama was a warmongering yahoo that wanted to go to Syria and had us "fighting a war" in Libya?

 

 

Well said, the suggestion that Obama is a warmonger is absurd. He has deliberately avoided wars like Syria and Iran and allowed negotiations and sanctions to get those countries to tow the line, despite criticism from the Republicans that this made him weak and the "USA was betraying it allies" . In Libya the Americans supplied air power to defeat Gaddafi's ground forces like his tanks and anti-aircraft defenses. But it was the French and the UK who did most of the international intervention and it was the Libyan rebels who did the fighting on the ground. Any person who thinks that Libya was an example of an American driven and led military war has no clue what they are talking about

[Valsuelm]

 

Also, he has not avoided starting other wars. There's Libya for one, and his administration tried their damnedest to start something in Syria. Public outcry and some interesting diplomacy by some nations such as Russia thwarted that, for now.

 

Gonna stop ya right there kiddo. If anything the republicans in congress wanted us to get into Syria, NOT the President. You didn't see Obama standing there next to two known terrorists and saying "we should support these guys" (That was McCain btw) and the "tricky diplomacy" you cite is one for the Chemical weapons that Obama was slow to act on in the first place (their use anyway). 

 

And Libya he didn't start. That was the consulate being attacked and then a popular uprising against Quaddaffi's regime. It WAS NOT some sort of inside job/false flag op to get us to go scrambling into Libya, and at best all we've done is impose a no-fly zone over the area (which G. H.W. Bush didn't have happen over Iraq after 1991's war which led to Saddams control of the region continuing.... I **** you not), and Skippy? that no-fly zone was UN santioned. Also right now Libya has 0 control as a nation because of the uprising in 2011 and is a bit of a lawless spot.

 

Now HOW THE **** did you think that Obama was a warmongering yahoo that wanted to go to Syria and had us "fighting a war" in Libya?

 

 

Mr. Obama is the commander in chief of the U.S. Military, not Mr. McCain. McCain can warmonger all he wants, and does, but Obama calls the shots.

 

interesting /= tricky. Please do not misquote me. I refer to a number of different things involving a number of different countries when I say 'interesting diplomacy'. It's interesting because those pushing for overt military intervention in Syria (the Obama administration indeed was doing this and there are numerous articles as well as videos proving this that you've apparently not watched/read or just ignore (though it was pretty hard to ignore Kerry)) were thwarted, and that doesn't happen too often these last couple decades. Ukraine/Crimea marks the second major diplomatic setback to Anglo-American hegemony in the last couple years, Syria the first. Russia and Putin had a hand in both, moreso in the second of course.

 

There was no popular uprising in Libya. It was a coup sponsored by some members of NATO (the US being one), and only succeeded due to military intervention by some of those members.

 

The U.N. sanctioning something does not make it legal or right.

 

Really, you have to ignore a lot of things to not think Obama got us involved in Libya or realize that his administration was pushing to go into Syria as well. And whether or not France was involved (and they were) has nothing to do with Obama committing U.S. forces to the invasion of a nation. Nor does what some republicans such as McCain bliabbling about have anything to do with the actual action of committing to military force. Nevermind that Obama committing military in the invasion of another nation without congress's explicit authorization is unconstitutional, though he is not the first president to overstep those bounds he did overstep them, and yea that is impeachable if congress was going to actually do it's job (something it doesn't do too often for better and worse).

 

Half of what you wrote is incoherent by the way. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's due to those ****** you stuck in there. Try not to swear so much.

[Bartimaeus]

snip

 

I think another important realization is that literally everyone is biased in some manner of speaking, whether it be wholly and knowingly so, or more subtly and "acceptably" so. Literally everyone has different values for literally everything - whether those values in things be essentially nonexistent or the "single issue" for a person. I, for example, highly value U.S. hegemony - but I also value liberty, and making sure that the U.S. deserves its hegemony status. This is a balancing act for myself, but in general, I tend to support foreign U.S. actions - as it seems most actions are to do with either maintaining or expanding our power - except when it seems the problems in doing so, whether moral or actual, are too great and/or too many to ignore. Contrarily, however, I tend to demonize domestic affairs, as it seems regular citizens are perpetually having to fight to make sure our country doesn't slide backwards socially. My idea of what  "backwards" and "forwards" are are equally biased - for example, I think a whole lot of people value certain "key" issues that I think are almost entirely irrelevant and couldn't really care either way about. I think that we are currently treading a very fine line with our "mandate of heaven"...but as there seems to be no better replacement that would not be just as corrupt and backwards as we are if given the chance...best to try and change things domestically, even if it does seem ever hopeless.

 

Point is, I'm biased, you're biased, everyone's biased. Bruce's comment suggesting that neither CNN nor BBC are biased made me actually laugh out loud - of course they are, they're Western news corporations. Western corporations, for goodness' sakes. How could they not be biased? It's literally, (I think anyways), an impossibility. Their continued good future relies on the West dominating economically and socially...militarily, too, I suppose. So naturally, they value certain things that other non-Western sources might not - hence why RT, for example, is hardly ever likely to agree with Western sources on any West vs. Russia issues - because both sides are biased and naturally, as naturally as humans think and breathe, value things differently as a result of what they are. They might represent the "two sides" - as if there's a finite two sides to anything - of an issue to some degree, but that hardly makes them unbiased. Neither one is right or wrong, even if what they tell are complete physical lies - just serving different agendas, as everyone does. Whatever narrative someone presents - even if it is the very lack of one - shows a bias.

 

P.S. I hate it when I make long-winded posts like this that actually don't say anything at all. Oh well. If for nothing else besides a record of what I was thinking of at this time...

Edited March 26, 2014 by Bartimaeus