Obama Impeachment

[Valsuelm]

 

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

 

 

So you ignore the points I make above and I and others make in other threads, say you're too busy, but you're not too busy to say 'righto!' to a very polarized and misinformed post trying to disagree with what I said?

 

Seriously. Go apply for a PR job somewhere, or run for office. You've got the skills. If you're not ugly, you may go far.

 

Tip on the polarization for you, Calex, and everyone else who think it's a Republican vs. Democrat thing. It almost never is. Both parties are by and large bought by the same people both to hedge their investments and divide and conquer. It would behoove you to stop thinking you're on Team Obama or Team *insert your favorite Republican here*, and realize that with either team the game is rigged.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Valsuelm

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

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.

Of course, everyone has their biases. It is impossible to get away from them. Even if you try your hardest to be perfectly objective, bias will show as you're going to focus on and analyze issues that you feel strongly about much more than those you feel less strongly about. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with biases, as we probably wouldn't have theories or ideologies without them, but pretending you don't have them is intellectually dishonest.

 

As to media, I would argue that Western media's largest bias is towards sensationalism, as they want as many viewers possible to make more money. I think what some people forget is that media is fundamentally a business and that their highest priority is to make money, so obviously they may provide more or less coverage on certain things if it benefits them.

 

Bit of a tangent, but I believe the reason opinion shows, like FOX News and MSNBC prime time slots are so popular is because they provide the product of validation to viewers. I've always found those programs to be incredibly unappealing myself, and get some enjoyment out of watching them ridiculed in shows such as The Colbert Report.

 

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...

I find taking an occasional intellectual **** is good for the soul.

[Valsuelm]

 

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...

 

 

Your thesis is that everyone is bias. While I agree this is true in regards to at least some things in everyone's life (ie: we all have our preferences for our favorite dish), it is not necessarily true in all things in a person's life. Some folks do have the ability to objectively look at something, and there isn't always a predisposition on X for everyone. Occasionally it's even possible to be 100% neutral on a subject. 

 

Are there a lot of people that are mentally handicapped by dogmas, willful ignorances, belief in stereotypes, bigotry, etc. who are ever unable to not be bias? Sure. But there are people who aren't, and to not realize that is to be in a box. Moreover, all of those people who are in a box and can't escape their bias do have it within them to break free from those chains if they're willing to look for the truth and think for themselves. A simple concept but very difficult for many, as to embark on this is to accept greater responsibility, as well as many truths can be ugly on a level many don't want to face. Truly thinking for oneself takes effort, and many are mentally lazy. The mentally lazy gravitate towards predetermined bias, often one manufacturer for them. Bias is often (not always) a function of mental laziness.

 

As a somewhat related aside it's been my observation that for most people, they can be as intelligent as they want, and have a much greater mental capacity than they ever come close to realizing. Realizing the potential of your brain takes effort, both in thinking, and in pursuit of reality/truth.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Valsuelm

[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?

 

 

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.

 

 

This is the main issue I have with your posts Valsuelm. You make some accurate points and then you make comments that are completely and utterly factually false.

 

You say  "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 insurrection in Libya was part of the Arab Spring, I am sure you have heard of that? This had nothing to with Western powers or NATO. This was about the citizens of several countries in the Middle East wanting a better life for themselves and the fact they were tired of there rulers and or governing families living a life of opulence while they lived in poverty and squalor, I find it insulting that you don't seem to think that people living  in countries lead by dictators don't aspire to a better life. In your world the uprising in Libya must have been due to "Western influence...its just demonstrates your ignorance around the causes of the Arab Spring. Its the same fallacious understanding you have of other global events, like the reason why the Zimbabwe economy is in such a bad state. You think its because of the West and sanctions when its due to the disastrous economic and political decisions Mugabe has made

 

 

You really need to stop believing everything is some great Western conspiracy, you sound like a zealot

[BruceVC]

 

 

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

 

 

So you ignore the points I make above and I and others make in other threads, say you're too busy, but you're not too busy to say 'righto!' to a very polarized and misinformed post trying to disagree with what I said?

 

Seriously. Go apply for a PR job somewhere, or run for office. You've got the skills. If you're not ugly, you may go far.

 

Tip on the polarization for you, Calex, and everyone else who think it's a Republican vs. Democrat thing. It almost never is. Both parties are by and large bought by the same people both to hedge their investments and divide and conquer. It would behoove you to stop thinking you're on Team Obama or Team *insert your favorite Republican here*, and realize that with either team the game is rigged.

 

 

Yeah I changed my mind and decided to comment when I realized how biased and uninformed some of your comments are..I hope you don't mind

[Guard Dog]

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.

LOL, that's it. Close this thread, KP wins!

[Bartimaeus]

Of course, everyone has their biases. It is impossible to get away from them. Even if you try your hardest to be perfectly objective, bias will show as you're going to focus on and analyze issues that you feel strongly about much more than those you feel less strongly about. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with biases, as we probably wouldn't have theories or ideologies without them, but pretending you don't have them is intellectually dishonest.

 

As to media, I would argue that Western media's largest bias is towards sensationalism, as they want as many viewers possible to make more money. I think what some people forget is that media is fundamentally a business and that their highest priority is to make money, so obviously they may provide more or less coverage on certain things if it benefits them.

 

Bit of a tangent, but I believe the reason opinion shows, like FOX News and MSNBC prime time slots are so popular is because they provide the product of validation to viewers. I've always found those programs to be incredibly unappealing myself, and get some enjoyment out of watching them ridiculed in shows such as The Colbert Report.

 

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...

I find taking an occasional intellectual **** is good for the soul.

 

 

I actually wrote that post as an addendum to yours - in support - not as any sort of retort. I (basically) agree with all of your statements...at least on this issue.

 

"Opinion" news shows I, too, find incredibly unappealing. As if I needed any additional bias in my life by filtering it through more people who clearly have agendas, whether I am for them or not. I've pretty much given up on all TV news, except perhaps local news in very small doses. I like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert in small doses, too, - primarily because they actually are pretty funny - but find that I can't really stomach watching them much, either. TV really just isn't my thing these days.

 

@Valsuelm: No, I disagree. A person intrinsically, for no "absolute" - absolute in the sense of being completely reinforced by something else - decides that some things are right, and that some things are wrong. As an example, most people believe that murder is "wrong" - not all, but most. Why? Such a concept, the innate wrongness of killing, does not exist anywhere else in the animal kingdom, (not that its existence elsewhere would justify it, mind you). Yet most of us have decided that it is indeed wrong - evil, even. It is a fiction - a social construct - that we have completely made up, and one that most of us choose to follow. Any rationalization you could use to explain our belief in its "wrongness" is similarly unabsolute - such lines of thought are (at least to my knowledge) completely circular and recursive. What's even worse, I think, is that though most of us believe killing is wrong, many of us also believe that certain conditions can make it unwrong, whether intellectually (really thinking it's no longer wrong) or in actuality (still thinking it's wrong, but assigning no blame/consequences for it). Apply this principal to less extreme examples, where more people disagree with each other - abortion, as an amusing (to me, as it's still to do with "killing") example - and you find that such biases paint the lives of every single person. There's no [human] logical root to why we believe what we do, or value what we do, yet such beliefs and values still persist. Not that I think that's necessarily a bad thing. Humans would be very boring otherwise, I think.

 

I think the only type of person that is intellectually unbiased is the person that completely lacks any sort of intellect - sapience - to begin with. And even then, only intellectually. There'd still be behavioral - as in, what we actually do - biases.

 

Dang. I did it again.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Of course, everyone has their biases. It is impossible to get away from them. Even if you try your hardest to be perfectly objective, bias will show as you're going to focus on and analyze issues that you feel strongly about much more than those you feel less strongly about. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with biases, as we probably wouldn't have theories or ideologies without them, but pretending you don't have them is intellectually dishonest.

As to media, I would argue that Western media's largest bias is towards sensationalism, as they want as many viewers possible to make more money. I think what some people forget is that media is fundamentally a business and that their highest priority is to make money, so obviously they may provide more or less coverage on certain things if it benefits them.

Bit of a tangent, but I believe the reason opinion shows, like FOX News and MSNBC prime time slots are so popular is because they provide the product of validation to viewers. I've always found those programs to be incredibly unappealing myself, and get some enjoyment out of watching them ridiculed in shows such as The Colbert Report.

 

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...

 

I find taking an occasional intellectual **** is good for the soul.

 

I actually wrote that post as an addendum to yours - in support - not as any sort of retort. I (basically) agree with all of your statements...at least on this issue.

 

"Opinion" news shows I, too, find incredibly unappealing. As if I needed any additional bias in my life by filtering it through more people who clearly have agendas, whether I am for them or not. I've pretty much given up on all TV news, except perhaps local news in very small doses. I like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert in small doses, too, - primarily because they actually are pretty funny - but find that I can't really stomach watching them much, either. TV really just isn't my thing these days.

 

@Valsuelm: No, I disagree. A person intrinsically, for no "absolute" - absolute in the sense of being completely reinforced by something else - decides that some things are right, and that some things are wrong. As an example, most people believe that murder is "wrong" - not all, but most. Why? Such a concept, the innate wrongness of killing, does not exist anywhere else in the animal kingdom, (not that its existence elsewhere would justify it, mind you). Yet most of us have decided that it is indeed wrong - evil, even. It is a fiction - a social construct - that we have completely made up, and one that most of us choose to follow. Any rationalization you could use to explain our belief in its "wrongness" is similarly unabsolute - such lines of thought are (at least to my knowledge) completely circular and recursive. What's even worse, I think, is that though most of us believe killing is wrong, many of us also believe that certain conditions can make it unwrong, whether intellectually (really thinking it's no longer wrong) or in actuality (still thinking it's wrong, but assigning no blame/consequences for it). Apply this principal to less extreme examples, where more people disagree with each other - abortion, as an amusing (to me, as it's still to do with "killing") example - and you find that such biases paint the lives of every single person. There's no [human] logical root to why we believe what we do, or value what we do, yet such beliefs and values still persist. Not that I think that's necessarily a bad thing. Humans would be very boring otherwise, I think.

 

I think the only type of person that is intellectually unbiased is the person that completely lacks any sort of intellect - sapience - to begin with. And even then, only intellectually. There'd still be behavioral - as in, what we actually do - biases.

 

Dang. I did it again.

Oh, I got that you agreed with me there, I just like hearing myself talk. Consider my post am addendum to your addendum.

[BruceVC]

 

Oh, I got that you agreed with me there, I just like hearing myself talk. Consider my post am addendum to your addendum.

 

 

It must be weird for you having people agree with you on topics outside of jokes and women in bikini's ...how does it feel ?

 

Edited March 26, 2014 by BruceVC

[Meshugger]

So there are no trancedental truths on right and wrong? By that logic, Obama can do whatever he wants trolololooo

[Bartimaeus]

So there are no trancedental truths on right and wrong? By that logic, Obama can do whatever he wants trolololooo

 

lol

 

maybe by your logic

Edited March 26, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[Meshugger]

 

So there are no trancedental truths on right and wrong? By that logic, Obama can do whatever he wants trolololooo

 

lol

 

maybe by your logic

 

 

Who are you to judge? By passing judgement, you make a stand based on a social construct in your own relative domain. In fact, you must not judge!

 

 

Trolololoooo

[Bartimaeus]

I said "maybe"! That implies I'm not really sure either way and therefore am not necessarily making a judgement.  ...maybe 

[BruceVC]

I said "maybe"! That implies I'm not really sure either way and therefore am not necessarily making a judgement.  ...maybe 

 

You funny Barti, you make me laugh

 

[kgambit]

 

 

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.

    

 

The view in the video is just utter nonsense.  Val, I understand your pov but I think it (incorrectly) places the entirety of the blame on Obama.   

(I'm no fan of Obama and I think his promise to close Guantanamo was ill-considered in the first place; but I think this is one instance where he deserves a little slack.  I can't hold him responsible for breaking a promise that was nearly impossible for him to keep.)

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/30/obama-just-gave-a-powerful-speech-about-the-need-to-close-gitmo-so-why-hasnt-he/

 

 

[Each detainee] has to be moved somewhere else. A basic premise of Gitmo, after all, was that these are people would be kept in perpetual limbo. Each detainee can leave that limbo through one of four different routes: a civilian trial, a military tribunal, a foreign country's prison system or freedom.

 

Sounds simple enough, right? Except that the first two routes – civilian trial or military tribunal – were blocked by Congress, which passed legislation barring the federal government from funding trials for Guantanamo detainees or buying a prison in the U.S. to house them.  (Note:  The legislation in question is the  National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2011.   http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.6523:

 

The third route, to send the detainees to a foreign country's prison system, is only legal if the U.S. can be sure that the detainees will not be tortured there. Given some of the countries from which the detainees originate, this is not always an easy guarantee to make. And there have been doubts about foreign governments' ability to appropriately safeguard the detainees. A 2008 Washington Post article portrayed Yemeni officials struggling to convince their U.S. counterparts that they could safely accommodate prisoners from Guantanamo, while U.S. officials worried that they might be released.

 

The fourth route, freedom, actually already applies to 86 of the 166 detainees. The U.S. government believes they can be safely released back into the world, but it has nowhere to send them. For many of these individuals, their home country will not take them or might torture them, meaning the U.S. has to find an entirely different country to release them to.

 

There's been a great deal of political attention to this last category. Recent congressional legislation allows the Pentagon to get a special "waiver" allowing it to ship detainees to third countries, but only if a senior administration official pledges that the receiving country can guarantee that the detainee will never take up (or, in some cases, return to) terrorism against the U.S. Given that a recent study estimated that between 16 and 27 percent of released Gitmo detainees have participated in terrorism since leaving the facility, it's hard to imagine any top political officials betting their careers on newly released detainees never returning to extremism. Whether the significant political risk of using these waivers is a bug of the program or a feature, the effect is the same, and in January the Obama administration effectively shut down the State Department office dedicated to closing Guantanamo.

 

 

But that situation has changed.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

 

 

On Dec. 19, the Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2014, which contained a provision making it easier for the government to transfer detainees to foreign countries. Before detainee transfers could take place under the old law, the defense secretary had to make detailed certifications about security and other issues in the host country, to assure Congress that  released detainees would not engage in terrorist activities in their new country.  Congress eased many of these restriction.  (see the previous quote for the details)

 

Just more than a week after the Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act, the Pentagon announced the transfer to Slovakia of the last three Uighur detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

 

Overall, there are now 155 detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, according to the Miami Herald, with 77 approved for transfer.

 

 

 

So to repeat:  Yes, Obama broke his promise but I sincerely doubt it's because he doesn't want to close it.   Some of the obstacles in his path were not of his own making.

Edited March 26, 2014 by kgambit

[Meshugger]

I said "maybe"! That implies I'm not really sure either way and therefore am not necessarily making a judgement.  ...maybe 

 

Boo

 

Coward

[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?

 

 

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.

 

I get really ticked off when you give vague generalities and then just blindly ignore the truth and context in order to promote your personal narrative. Your entire argument strategy appears to be either "Well the founders didn't intend it that way! Read [insert founder text here] and see for yourself!" which is utterly asinine as the meanings and discussions found within those texts are STILL debated by PhD's, to somehow suggest that they're the magical word of God, unassailable by any man, and will always have the same meaning no matter who reads them, would be to throw out half the point of the Supreme Court and ignore the fact that, wa-hay! the USA has advanced technologically at an astounding pace and the assumption that we need certain things may be outdated.

 

In this instance Obama was pretty obviously reluctant to actually send in troops to Syria (which we haven't done) and it's his administration that found a way for us to not actually openly attack them (like he said he would if the use of chemical weapons was found). And in Libya, DESPITE BEING OPENLY AND DELIBERATELY ATTACKED he still hasn't put boots on the ground despite having the political backing to do it pretty easily. Instead he enforced a UN no-fly zone which you may not view as "right" but it certainly is Legal.

 

And yet you are still using both of these situations to say "Well that thar Obama Feller is certainly one heck of a warmonger". If he were actually the Warmonger you think he is, we'd be seeing our army on the ground in Libya to "restore order" and we'd be bombing the crap out of the Syrians claiming to support the rebels. All he's been doing is attempting to survive politically in the face of a republican party (and media apparatus) that is screaming bloody murder to go in and shoot somebody.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Valsuelm, on 25 Mar 2014 - 9:42 PM, said:

 

Wrath of Dagon, on 25 Mar 2014 - 9:10 PM, said:

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).

 

Yes, that one. May be they don't have the constitutional authority, but the Supreme Court says they do. And is Obama a states' rights guy now? When is he abolishing the FDA?

[Meshugger]

Well Obama is meeting the Pope today, maybe the President will have a change of heart after that.

[BruceVC]

 

Valsuelm, on 25 Mar 2014 - 9:42 PM, said:

 

Wrath of Dagon, on 25 Mar 2014 - 9:10 PM, said:

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).

 

Yes, that one. May be they don't have the constitutional authority, but the Supreme Court says they do. And is Obama a states' rights guy now? When is he abolishing the FDA?

 

 

OMG, so you also have a problem with the legalization of marijuana? So do you believe its right that people in the USA go to jail for having maybe 10 grams of marijuana on them...because there are people sitting in jail in the USA doing proper jail time for possession of marijuana for personal use. Is this your idea of a fair society, where alcohol is legal ( and all the problems that come with alcohol abuse ) but the act of someone smoking weed means that person deserves to be incarcerated?

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's illegal right now, that's the point. You can try to change the law, but you can't ignore the law. But yes, I'm against legalization. Now they're promoting pot all over the place, and American kids are plenty dumb enough already.

[Bryy]

Well Obama is meeting the Pope today, maybe the President will have a change of heart after that.

Knowing Francis, they'll probably go skydiving.

[obyknven]

http://youtu.be/E_PHLiLSf4s

I really don't understand why Americans so tolerant to this liar. He just discredit US.