Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > President Obama signs the NDAA into law.

President Obama signs the NDAA into law.
Thread Tools
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 01:28 PM
 
In case you missed it, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) last night, when few people were paying attention or would notice. This is a bill that he, himself had vowed he would veto if it made it's way through Congress only to, when that fateful moment occurred, experience a moment of doubt. Instead of following through with his promise to uphold the constitution and the right of all people (but, for the sake of increasing the appeal of this argument, let's focus on US citizens), guaranteed by the Constitution, to a speedy and public trial before being imprisoned.

Instead, we are now subject to the whim of the President who is officially empowered to detain—without charges, without evidence, without trial—anyone. In theory, this will only be used against terrorists. But how do we know that they are terrorists if charges are not filed and a trial is not held at which evidence can be presented? And, lacking such protections as a trial and presumption of innocence, what is to prevent the President from deeming any political opponent a terrorist suspect and hauling them off to some overseas detention camp forever?

'Now,' you might argue, 'President Obama would never do that!'. And you may very well be right. But what about the next President? Would you trust Presidents Gingritch, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, Palin, Bachmann, Biden, &c. to exercise the same constraint?

We have, in this country, any number of high-level politicians who have made, and continue to make, claims to the effect that anyone who disagrees with current policy is a terrorist; anyone who isn't a Christian is a terrorist; anyone who they don't like is a terrorist. We hear rhetoric that copyright violators are terrorists, environmentalists are terrorists, liberals are terrorists, atheists are terrorists, and, of course, that Muslims are terrorists. What happens if and when such a person becomes President and suddenly has the power and authority to 'disappear' anyone whom they deem a terrorist?

I can only hope that we're going to see some public outcry over this, though that may be too much to ask of a population that seems willing to accept anything from a politician so long as that politician promises to 'create jobs'. If ever there was a cause for 'the 99%' to support, it must be this: to be safe from the depredations of a 1% empowered to make them disappear on a whim. Even worse, this isn't an issue of the 1% vs. the 99%; this is an issue of the .000000003% vs. the 99.999999997%.

One person, who, in the current person of Barack Obama has already claimed—and exercised—the right to assassinate American Citizens, has now been blessed by Congress with the power, essentially, of life and death over us all.
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 01:48 PM
 
In direct response to this, I've filled out a DC voter registration card switching my party affiliation from NONE to Republican. There are only two potential candidates for President in 2012 that can be trusted on this sort of issue: Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. With Gary Johnson now officially out of the running for the Republican nomination, I see no real choice but to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. If he doesn't get the Republican nomination we can then, at least, still, hopefully, vote for Gary Johnson as the Libertarian Party candidate.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
If ever there was a cause for 'the 99%' to support, it must be this
Yeah but we missed our chance to protest against it, because now if you protest too strongly it might just make you a terrorist and you'll never be hear from again
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 01:59 PM
 
Yep, this shit would have never happened with Ron Paul.

Obama - Change we can believe in

-t
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post

We have, in this country, any number of high-level politicians who have made, and continue to make, claims to the effect that anyone who disagrees with current policy is a terrorist; anyone who isn't a Christian is a terrorist; anyone who they don't like is a terrorist. We hear rhetoric that copyright violators are terrorists, environmentalists are terrorists, liberals are terrorists, atheists are terrorists, and, of course, that Muslims are terrorists. What happens if and when such a person becomes President and suddenly has the power and authority to 'disappear' anyone whom they deem a terrorist?

I can only hope that we're going to see some public outcry over this, though that may be too much to ask of a population that seems willing to accept anything from a politician so long as that politician promises to 'create jobs'. If ever there was a cause for 'the 99%' to support, it must be this: to be safe from the depredations of a 1% empowered to make them disappear on a whim. Even worse, this isn't an issue of the 1% vs. the 99%; this is an issue of the .000000003% vs. the 99.999999997%.
You are absolutely right. And this is just the start of things to come. The government will use the laws for good for the first few years in their quest to destroy the rebellion. Then slowly modify the laws to more liberally include more people in the category of terrorist, as it becomes more accepted. This is the tactic that was used by Germany to desensitize the majority to the more atrocious things that were on the horizon. It is only a matter of time before we see mp3 downloaders imprisoned.

The government moves slow like mime; inching more and more on your liberties until one day you say anything against corporation or government and you are accepted as terrorist by the majority. You guys should take a look at the homeland security application; if you have ever said anything critical about the government on a blog, or joined in on occupy wall-street etc.. you are automatically disqualified.
( Last edited by el chupacabra; Jan 3, 2012 at 07:55 PM. )
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 03:25 PM
 
As a mentioned a work a few weeks back. The constitution includes its very own reset button, the second ammendment. That's what it's there for, not to allow you to go out and kill deer.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 03:42 PM
 
Barack Obama, the just and caring president, who told his political opponents to "get on the back of the bus" after his election, who said elections have consequences when illegally ramming through an unconstitutional takeover of health care, and who plans to carry forward in 2012 with his agenda without Congressional approval - he would never use indefinite detention on anyone who didn't deserve it. Of course not. And as Nancy Pelosi says, there's nothing that Congress can't legislate on - there's no such thing as unconstitutional legislative overreach by Congress. There's no limitation on the powers of the federal government anymore. What Constitution? Just a crusty old piece of paper written by rich white men, right?

Good job libtards who campaign for ever larger, more powerful government. Go vote to reelect this scoundrel and his willing executioners this year. Proud of you.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jan 1, 2012 at 03:51 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 04:07 PM
 
Patriot. Act.

To vilify a man for pushing through Bob Dole's 20-year-old healthcare reform is a right you, as a Republican, no longer have and will never have again. Your Whining Card was voided after the 8 year police state experiment that was the Bush administration and its Republican-party-mainstays string pullers.

The only people who can henceforth criticize a Democrat for use of power, on any level, are Independents.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 04:50 PM
 
Oh, okay, playing the old "our guy is bad but so was your guy, screw you" card. Yeah, not persuasive. I was no real fan of the Bush Administration, Lateralus. I've been speaking out against the cancer that is big, oppressive government since long before our Kenyan president. So please don't tell me about rights you don't think I have to speak the truth.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 05:01 PM
 
My favorite part of his signing statement is how "this administration" won't use this for ill.

"After I'm gone you're on your own mother ****ers!"
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
Patriot. Act.

To vilify a man for pushing through Bob Dole's 20-year-old healthcare reform is a right you, as a Republican, no longer have and will never have again. Your Whining Card was voided after the 8 year police state experiment that was the Bush administration and its Republican-party-mainstays string pullers.

The only people who can henceforth criticize a Democrat for use of power, on any level, are Independents.
The Patriot Act passed 98-1 and 357-66. Also, if I recall, it wasn't shoved in an appropriations bill.
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The Patriot Act passed 98-1 and 357-66, and if I recall, wasn't shoved in an appropriations bill.
This.

This is not a partisan issue, this is an issue of a government that's been consistently and without remose eroding our civil liberties in a serious way for at least a decade. I, personally, consider this issue to be important enough that I'll vote for candidates that I otherwise wouldn't. In fact, it was because I expected him to be better on this that I voted for Obama despite strongly disagreeing with him on other things.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 05:13 PM
 
^^^ FTW.

What this country needs is to roll back government power, overreach and political
cronyism.

None of the established politicians in the main parties will deliver that.

-t
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
This.

This is not a partisan issue, this is an issue of a government that's been consistently and without remose eroding our civil liberties in a serious way for at least a decade. I, personally, consider this issue to be important enough that I'll vote for candidates that I otherwise wouldn't. In fact, it was because I expected him to be better on this that I voted for Obama despite strongly disagreeing with him on other things.
I can understand people not thinking right in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but I had hoped people would have cooled down a bit by now.

Cooling down was his platform FFS.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
^^^ FTW.

What this country needs is to roll back government power, overreach and political
cronyism.

None of the established politicians in the main parties will deliver that.

-t

I agree with this, and I'm furthermore glad that you didn't also say that the government has to be "small" or "smaller".

I'm starting to think that maybe there is a language disconnect with how Republicans and Democrats talk about big and small government. You can have a big organizational structure of any kind and be efficient, not wasteful, and not have the problems we are having now. Apple is now a big company, yet they are still relatively efficient, and if this is disputable I hope that we can agree that Apple's shortcomings are reconcilable without slashing and burning the company down to a smaller size. In fact, I wouldn't even necessarily say that it is "harder" to be efficient at a large size, because look at technology as a reflection of our global culture: as time progresses it becomes increasingly complex. Indeed, our world is becoming an increasingly complex place.

Granted, I'm not saying that there isn't room for simplification or that bigger is better, but I'm just uncomfortable with saying that our systems need to be smaller just because without taking into account the changes to our world since whenever government was at the size it apparently should be now.

Perhaps "small government" is simply a sort of shorthand way of saying "efficient, non-bloated" government? If this is the case, this is obviously always desirable and I don't think the left and right would disagree on this. It's the "it has to be small, just cause" thing that I find idiotic.

It has to be efficient and cost effective, I don't really care what size it is in order to accomplish these objectives.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
I, personally, consider this issue to be important enough that I'll vote for candidates that I otherwise wouldn't. In fact, it was because I expected him to be better on this that I voted for Obama
How do you know the next person you vote for on this issue won't reverse themselves the same way
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
How do you know the next person you vote for on this issue won't reverse themselves the same way
I guess it's impossible to be sure, but Ron Paul has been pretty damned consistent for a long time.

This is a problem we face with all elections, there's never any way to be sure that a candidate won't change his/her tune upon entering office. All we can do is try to elect people who seem consistent, and try and punish those who aren't by booting them out of office at the earliest opportunity.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:05 PM
 
You voted for Obama? Oy. You know you were voting for a massive increase in government, right?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You voted for Obama? Oy. You know you were voting for a massive increase in government, right?
It didn't seem guaranteed, and I expected that he'd never get his healthcare plan through Congress. Clearly I was mistaken. At the time he was getting favorable reviews from my mostly strongly conservate friends in Illinois.

However his record in Illinois and the fact that he was a Constitutional scholar made me think that he would be better on civil liberties, which is my primary concern. Basically, I thought he was less likely than McCain to continue Bush's path towards an American dictatorship. I'm still not convinced that I was wrong about that.

Overall, if I were going to do it again, I might still vote for Obama. I think he's been an absolutely horrible president, but I don't think that we had a better option.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:15 PM
 
My head hurts after that explanation.

McCain would have been a better president across the board. Anyone who believes otherwise isn't facing facts.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You voted for Obama? Oy. You know you were voting for a massive increase in government, right?
Personally, I was voting against the person who picked Sarah Palin.

Bob Barr, by being Bob Barr, didn't help things.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
You voted for Obama? Oy. You know you were voting for a massive increase in government, right?
Unless you mean a decrease of government efficiency and cost effectiveness (which you probably do), so what?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Overall, if I were going to do it again, I might still vote for Obama. I think he's been an absolutely horrible president, but I don't think that we had a better option.

I'm not so sure we have a better option right now either, sadly.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
My head hurts after that explanation.

McCain would have been a better president across the board. Anyone who believes otherwise isn't facing facts.
Opinions are not facts. A hypothetical reality will never be a factual one.
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
My head hurts after that explanation.

McCain would have been a better president across the board. Anyone who believes otherwise isn't facing facts.
That would seem rather contrary to his voting record in the Senate and the positions he took during the 2008 campaign. He gave no indication then that he would diverse significantly from Bush's policies, and nothing he's done in the past 3 years suggests that he changed his mind. The major substantive difference was in healthcare, and I admit that I misjudged Obama's likelihood to get his way there.

McCain was and continues to be strong voice for a highly militaristic foreign policy. Perhaps he wouldn't have unconstitutionally sent US military assets into combat in Libya, but he seemed awfully keen on starting a war with Iran.

He voted for the NDAA in the Senate, so obviously no better than Obama there.

I just don't see the justification for the claim that he would have been substantively better than Obama, and certainly not on civil liberties issues where he, like the rest of the mainstream Republican field, seems to be all about big government controls on personal behavior and speech.
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm not so sure we have a better option right now either, sadly.
Me neither, but I do think that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only two candidates who I would even consider trusting with the kind of power we've now given the President. They're certainly the only ones who seem at all likely to want to try and reverse this trend.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Overall, if I were going to do it again, I might still vote for Obama. I think he's been an absolutely horrible president, but I don't think that we had a better option.
I was thinking about this recently.

What I did:
Kerry
Obama in primary
Obama

What I should have done:
Badnarik
Clinton in the Primary
Umm... Nader?
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Instead, we are now subject to the whim of the President who is officially empowered to detain—without charges, without evidence, without trial—anyone. In theory, this will only be used against terrorists.
How does "only used against terrorists" make this law reasonable or acceptable?

Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
'Now,' you might argue, 'President Obama would never do that!'.
In light of Anwar al-Awlaki, indefinite detention seems a little soft for his tastes.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
How does "only used against terrorists" make this law reasonable or acceptable?

In light of Anwar al-Awlaki, indefinite detention seems a little soft for his tastes.
I'm pretty sure those were meant to be Devil's advocate arguments.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Me neither, but I do think that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only two candidates who I would even consider trusting with the kind of power we've now given the President. They're certainly the only ones who seem at all likely to want to try and reverse this trend.
In terms of abuse of power, this seems correct, providing they can be effective enough to undo what has been done, which is unfortunately also not a given.

No one individual is going to change squat. The entire climate is going to have to change. Obama tried that, but it didn't work.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
In terms of abuse of power, this seems correct, providing they can be effective enough to undo what has been done, which is unfortunately also not a given.

No one individual is going to change squat. The entire climate is going to have to change. Obama tried that, but it didn't work.
I have the feeling President Paul would veto every mother****er in the room.
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
My head hurts after that explanation.

McCain would have been a better president across the board. Anyone who believes otherwise isn't facing facts.
I should probably also mention that after the Patriot Act passed I made a point of reading the entire text of it, was completely horrified by it, and vowed to never support anyone who had voted for it. That means no McCain for me.

(Come to think of it, I may have posted something about it here back then.)
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I have the feeling President Paul would veto every mother****er in the room.

Maybe so, but then there would be political retaliation and nothing would ultimately get done. Politicians are really adept at manufacturing deadlock.

Until we get politicians who are really in politics for the best of reasons, I don't see this changing.
     
nonhuman  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 07:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Maybe so, but then there would be political retaliation and nothing would ultimately get done. Politicians are really adept at manufacturing deadlock.

Until we get politicians who are really in politics for the best of reasons, I don't see this changing.
Deadlock means they can't screw anything up. Doing nothing is better than doing harm.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Deadlock means they can't screw anything up. Doing nothing is better than doing harm.
It also means they can't make any changes.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 07:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It also means they can't make any changes.
In case you haven't noticed: change MEANS screwing up.
Under Bush, as well as Obama.

-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Overall, if I were going to do it again, I might still vote for Obama. I think he's been an absolutely horrible president, but I don't think that we had a better option.
Of course there is an option, it existed for the last 20 years and more: write in Ron Paul.

That's what I'm going to do.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
In case you haven't noticed: change MEANS screwing up.
Under Bush, as well as Obama.

-t

I don't necessarily agree, but the obvious solution is to change the changing screwing things up, rather than leaving everything the way it is, flawed as it is for eternity (particularly with our health care system which I think is our most flawed institution).

How we do this? I think it's going to require a huge, massive shakeup, starting with a shakeup of our apathetic culture, ending with a great reduction of corruption, and any/other political motives that do not jive with the betterment of the country.

Vague, yes, but true, I think...

It is beyond foolish for Republicans or Democrats to think that any one candidate is going to be some sort of savior to this country.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Of course there is an option, it existed for the last 20 years and more: write in Ron Paul.

That's what I'm going to do.

-t

I'm not saying you shouldn't do that, but understand that that is not going to change shit.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It is beyond foolish for Republicans or Democrats to think that any one candidate is going to be some sort of savior to this country.
The solution is never a better candidate.

The solution is a smart, intelligently voting citizenship.

Looking at the votes in the last 20 years, one has to conclude that most Americans are idiots.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 08:14 PM
 
I actually think Obama could have been a potentially great president in a healthier political climate.

He over-estimated his ability to change the dynamics of this environment, and has been ineffective in trying to make adjustments. I'm not sure if any one candidate has it within them to change the dynamics of the environment or be productive in this current environment though.

It's not that a pine for dictator Obama, far from it, but it is clear to me that politics these days are not about genuine debate, but just blocking hush money for the sake of it. If this wasn't so, instead of Republicans saying no to something like Obama's health care bill, we'd actually be hearing about alternative plans being debated to replace the current plan, or plans to refine the current plan into something more palatable. Any one of the elected congressmen/women or senators is able to come up with something, put it out there, garner support, and work to enact this legislation. Why have we heard nothing since the Obama health care package was passed? If it is so flawed, why are people either clapping their hands together and saying "done", or taking the stance "oh well, we tried" and doing nothing? It's not just enough to say "no", you have to put out ideas and lobby for them to be supported and voted upon, that's the gig.

Until we have politicians genuinely interested in debating ideas and putting them out there to vote on with the best of intentions, president Paul, president Gingrich, president Obama, president MacNN Abe, president Turtle777 - it's all going to be the same old crap.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The solution is never a better candidate.

The solution is a smart, intelligently voting citizenship.

Looking at the votes in the last 20 years, one has to conclude that most Americans are idiots.

-t

And you get an intelligent voting citizenship with a more intelligent and advanced culture, hence the thread I started the other day. Not only that, but you get better candidates to begin with.

Honestly, maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but I'd take a president ebuddy over a president Bachmann or Palin or Cain. How are these people anywhere near any sort of conversation for presidency? Alas, this is the culture we live in. Inject our culture with steroids of excellence, people like these are just parody candidates - complete jokes. They wouldn't be able to fool the more intelligent voting citizenship you desire.

It would also put an end to consternation over:

- former pastors
- teleprompters
- flag pins
- levels of patriotism
- family members of candidates
- political gimmicks
- how churchy a politician is
- stuff politicians said or did decades ago

and on and on... Wouldn't that be lovely?
( Last edited by besson3c; Jan 1, 2012 at 08:31 PM. )
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 10:43 PM
 
Here's all I'll say on the matter, and it's directed at everyone: If you're eligible to vote in the US presidential elections and you don't do everything in your power (including registering GOP and voting in primaries) to get Ron Paul in charge, you're an idiot.
I'll make it clear: This is your last chance to recover the United States from where it's headed. Your last best hope. Put aside party affiliations for the next year.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Here's all I'll say on the matter, and it's directed at everyone: If you're eligible to vote in the US presidential elections and you don't do everything in your power (including registering GOP and voting in primaries) to get Ron Paul in charge, you're an idiot.
I'll make it clear: This is your last chance to recover the United States from where it's headed. Your last best hope. Put aside party affiliations for the next year.

Electing Paul or anybody else is no magic bullet to make everything better, sorry.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Here's all I'll say on the matter, and it's directed at everyone: If you're eligible to vote in the US presidential elections and you don't do everything in your power (including registering GOP and voting in primaries) to get Ron Paul in charge, you're an idiot.
I'll make it clear: This is your last chance to recover the United States from where it's headed. Your last best hope. Put aside party affiliations for the next year.
I think it's over; there are no more chances. I fear for the country my grandson will live in, and even for my daughters, who are in their thirties.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Electing Paul or anybody else is no magic bullet to make everything better, sorry.
Why do you so often resort to blanket crap statements like that ?

Nobody ever said that Paul (or Obama, for that matter) would be a magic bullet or fix "everything".

Nobody is perfect. But Paul has the right ideas about freedoms and liberties, and years of unwavering positions in the House show that he is a very principles man (something that can't be said about any ther person in this presidential race.)

-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I think it's over; there are no more chances. I fear for the country my grandson will live in, and even for my daughters, who are in their thirties.
While I can see why you are pessimistic, I'm not quite there yet.

However, I fear this will not be over before a full-blown revolution that's going to get awful bloody.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 11:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
While I can see why you are pessimistic, I'm not quite there yet.

However, I fear this will not be over before a full-blown revolution that's going to get awful bloody.

-t

It's funny how you are not pessimistic yet you bitch and moan more than just about anybody

Could Occupy and the Tea Party (who I still claim are not all that dissimilar) be the first small steps of that revolution?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
While I can see why you are pessimistic, I'm not quite there yet.

However, I fear this will not be over before a full-blown revolution that's going to get awful bloody.

-t
I hope not, but I am fearful of that. Correlation? U.S. gun sales at record, based on FBI checks: CNN - MarketWatch
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2012, 11:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
In theory, this will only be used against terrorists.
"Terrorist" is a term that can be defined quite broadly and subjectively.

This is quite sad.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:44 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,