Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Liberals justify Obama by saying "He's gonna do what he really wants in his second term."

Maybe they're right...

The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial.

Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.

Worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.

[In a nod to civil rights concerns], the detainment of U.S. citizens by the military is optional. The military is not required to detain US citizens.

“The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders in a statement.

-- On a positive note, the president has expressed reservations. How many people think future presidents will have reservations? How many people think Obama won't use it? Let's count hands.

by Anonymousreply 4501/25/2013

It's a good thing the oppressive days of George W. Bush are over and we have the great defender of civil liberties ... oh, never mind.

by Anonymousreply 101/03/2013

[quote]"He's gonna do what he really wants..."

I remember when all the squealing little "Voices of Reason" said the same about Clarence Thomas.

by Anonymousreply 201/03/2013

Take your "liberals" shit and shove it up your bottom.

by Anonymousreply 301/03/2013

[quote]Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.

Oh dear.

by Anonymousreply 401/03/2013

R4:

Where's the mistake?

by Anonymousreply 501/04/2013

"domestic" and "on US soil" are redundant.

by Anonymousreply 601/04/2013

Oh please, OP. Stop making generalizations about "liberals." There's been a slew of threads like this lately.

We're never going to have Noam Chomsky for president. I support Obama and so does everyone I know, as preferable to the alternatives, but none of us is happy with his rendition policy, the drone policy, Guantanamo being open, etc. Stop portraying all his supporters as mindless sycophants.

I'm all for calling attention to those issues, but don't use them as a cudgel.

by Anonymousreply 701/04/2013

Those are the two choices, right? Either/Or.

If we are not happy with Obama, who is governing to the right of Richard Nixon and has been a conservative ever since he entered politics, then our only other choice is someone unelectable.

How about we get somebody on the left, at least once every generation. Is that too much too ask?

by Anonymousreply 801/04/2013

Frighteningly I think what Obama really wants and has always wanted was to destroy the Big 3. It kills the rich that there is SS money out there that they can't get their hands on. It has killed them since FDR. Obama is one with the rich, pretending to be for the middle class and would rather die than say the words the poor or poverty. At best he'll call the poor "Those trying to get into the middle class." I think he'd sooner say "Fuck" during a speech than say "The poor."

Obama has been trying to offer up the Big 3 almost since he's been in office.

by Anonymousreply 1001/04/2013

[bold]Don't listen to the Chicken Littles: Obama made smart investments in green tech [/bold]

A few falling acorns (Solyndra and A123) don't mean the sky is falling on clean technology. Far from it. The federal government’s track record on supporting green energy tech is an enviable one. And this investment is improving America’s energy, economic, and environmental fortunes.

by Anonymousreply 1101/04/2013

[bold]On the Fiscal Cliff, Obama Does What He Can Against 200 Years of Bad Faith[/bold]

The fiscal-cliff impasse had its roots in—where else?—the old South, with its lunatic blend of obstructionism and greed at the public trough...

by Anonymousreply 1201/04/2013

The only time r9 can get an erection is when his knee jerks.

by Anonymousreply 1301/04/2013

Very clever, in a smug, asinine way.

by Anonymousreply 1401/04/2013

Actually, it's perfectly arguable that Obama is slightly to the right of Nixon, at least on a few issues.

Nixon pushed health care reform (HMOs were created under his watch). Nixon created the EPA, and was very pro-environment.

Nixon looks like a goddamned commie next to Today's modern Republican party.

by Anonymousreply 1501/04/2013

When Wall Street, the banks, and the major corporations have a Democrat in the White House, this is to their advantage: The opposition, the liberals, the progressives, the peace activists, the environmental activists, the single payer groups, and labor shut down for four years.

That lets the rich push their agenda. They say to us, "How can you complain, he is one of yours!"

R9 is a prime example of the Quislings who demand allegiance and stifle dissent no matter how far to the right the Democrats go. So each year the Democrats go further right.

-- Here are Nixon's accomplishments on domestic issues:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Clean Air Act of 1970 and

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA);

The National Environmental Policy Act requiring environmental impact statements

The Philadelphia Plan in 1970—the first significant federal affirmative action program.[175]

He endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment.

-- Here are some of Obama's domestic policies

Pushes NAFTA

Seeks protection for banks that participated in mortgage fraud.

Protects banks from protection from the 2008 economic collapse

Expands Domestic Surveillance Powers.  The F.B.I. is giving its agents new leeway to infiltrate organizations, search household trash, use surveillance teams and search databases in domestic investigations. FBI agents will now be able investigate people and organizations “proactively” without firm evidence for suspecting criminal or terrorist activity

Arrests over 2,600 Activists Arrested in US.

Signed Patriot Act extension without reforms.

Approved Fourth Gulf Deepwater Drilling Permit

Defends Detention Conditions for Bradley Manning

Approves Indefinite Detention Without Trial. Worked with GOPers to Kill Bush Torture Probe

Launched a full-bloodied assault on Wikileaks. Prosecutes whistle blowers instead of rewarding the,

Proposes salary freeze for 2 million federal workers - excluding those in the military.

Reaches out to the Republicans to slash Social Security.

Claims Unchecked Authority to Kill Americans Outside Combat Zones

Endorses new film "Waiting for Superman" which attacks teacher's unions and promotes charter schools (read).

Bush's Rendition Program Remains Unchecked

Deports record numbers of illegal immigrants and auditing hundreds of businesses that hire undocumented workers

The Pentagon’s spy unit has begun rebuilding a controversial database that was shut down three years ago after it was found to have been used to monitor US peace activists.

Signs law allowing weapons in National Parks.

Backs Keystone Pipeline.

Shields from prosecution CIA operatives who inflicted waterboarding and other extreme interrogation techniques against terror suspects during the Bush years.

There isn't a arms dealer, a bank, a Wall Street firm, or a CEO that Obama doesn't adore.

by Anonymousreply 1601/04/2013

No, R16, Obama does NOT back Keystone Pipeline.

It's clear Obama is to the right of Nixon in many ways, but let's not go overboard or exaggerate. Leave that shit to FOX News.

by Anonymousreply 1701/04/2013

bump for liberal ideals!

by Anonymousreply 1801/04/2013

R17

Obama opposed the Keystone Pipeline initially in the sense that he didn't want it done as planned. He has now approved the southern section of it.

Liza Jackson, head of the EPA resigned abruptly and unexpectedly. She is telling anyone who will listen that Obama is going to announce approval of the pipeline, and she could not continue to serve in that situation.

An enormous gift to corporations and a slap in the face to environmentalist who supported him.

by Anonymousreply 1901/04/2013

R15, Nixon was the last liberal president we had

by Anonymousreply 2001/04/2013

R4 and R6

No, the way it was worded in OP was precise and not redundant. This is what you objected to, claiming that "domestic" and "U.S. soil" say the same thing:

"Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil."

There is a crucial difference between U.S. terrorists committing acts of terror on U.S. soil as opposed to committing them abroad.

The U.S. military has always been precluded from law enforcement on U.S. soil. That's with good reason. The step from law enforcement to martial law to put down dissent and/or to commit a coup is a fine one.

The author is saying that the military is now permitted to do law enforcement on U.S. soil against domestic terrorists.

That is an expansion of the previous situation in which the military could, in certain situations, pursue our domestic terrorists committing acts abroad.

by Anonymousreply 2101/04/2013

Ron Paultards:

Piss off. You lost.

by Anonymousreply 2201/04/2013

When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what's wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It's not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done. The democrats think that if they have hope and are inspired things will get better, but they actually won't. When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn't "hope" they can't break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can't break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge. - Roseanne Barr, February 2008

by Anonymousreply 2301/05/2013

No, R22, we ALL lose.

by Anonymousreply 2401/05/2013

even worse his fiscal cliff deal has saddled the American economy with a 2% deficit in the GDP that can only be addressed by cutting domestic spending on things like infrastructure and the social safety net. There is no long term financial plan for the United States only these political fights that are leading to alarmingly bad long term consequences.

by Anonymousreply 2501/05/2013

No, just you and your fellow deluded, R24.

by Anonymousreply 2601/05/2013

If he gets re-elected, he's going to take us to Sugar Candy Mountain.

by Anonymousreply 2701/05/2013

R2, not that anyone ever said that, but that's what he's doing. His opposition was due to his questionable competence. He's now sitting on his ass, collecting a nice income, while helping his wife violate ethics requirements left and right.

by Anonymousreply 2801/05/2013

Agreed, R8, but they can't win elections. I've been amazed as I get older, how many selfish,greedy people I come across. They can't stand it if they think someone is getting something they don't have. They also don't seem to understand that holding the rich to the same standards that the rest of us operate under would be a good thing.

by Anonymousreply 2901/05/2013

[quote]even worse his fiscal cliff deal has saddled the American economy with a 2% deficit in the GDP that can only be addressed by cutting domestic spending on things like infrastructure and the social safety net.

Oh, bullshit. What is your alternative? Austerity? We've seen how that works; it's failing miserably everywhere in the world it has been tried. Most of our deficit problems, 60% or more of the current deficit, I believe, go away by putting people back to work.

Overall, the fiscal cliff deal wasn't bad at all.

by Anonymousreply 3001/05/2013

-- Take a Flight Somewhere? Go to Vegas? Host an Exchange Student? -- Our Government Is Watching You.

"The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. That is a departure from past practice, which barred the agency from storing information about ordinary Americans unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.

"Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others.

"The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained.

"The changes also allow databases of U.S. civilian information to be given to foreign governments for analysis of their own. In effect, U.S. and foreign governments would be using the information to look for clues that people might commit future crimes."

-- If Bush had done this imagine the outrage. Liberals and progressives would be outraged, marching in the streets, demonstrating, and picketing the White House. Under a Democrat, silence.

"He is one of ours, don't rock the boat."

by Anonymousreply 3101/14/2013

-- “I suspect that on Social Security, we’ve got a somewhat similar position.” President Obama, October 3, 2012

According to inside-Washington gossip, Congress and the president are going to do exactly what voters elected them to do: they are going to cut Social Security by 3 percent.

You don't remember anyone running on that platform? Yeah, well, they probably forgot to mention it.

They don't care that we are still down more than 9 million jobs from our growth trend; deficit reduction must take priority. These whiz kids apparently also don't care that the cuts that have already been made are slowing growth and costing us jobs.

If we actually did have to reduce the deficit, it's hard to see why Social Security would be at the top of the list. After all, the vast majority of seniors are not doing especially well right now. Our defined benefit pension system is disappearing and 401(k)s have not come close to filling the gap.

Retirees and near retirees have lost much of the wealth they had managed to accumulate when the collapse of the housing bubble destroyed much of their home equity.

From a policy standpoint, it would make far more sense to tax Wall Street speculation. Congress' Joint Tax Committee estimated that a 0.03 percent tax on each trade could raise almost $40 billion a year. Such a tax would also make the financial sector more efficient by eliminating a huge volume of wasteful trading.

It also is bizarre that Social Security would even be considered in the context of the deficit. In law and in practice, it is a separate program, financed by its own designated stream of revenue. Cutting benefits as part of a deficit deal means that we will be making cuts to Social Security with zero quid pro quo in the form of increased revenue. That hardly makes sense if the point is to protect the program.

The bottom line is that President Obama and many leading Democrats are prepared to give seniors a larger hit to their income than they gave to the over-$250,000 crowd. And the whole reason it is necessary is that the Wall Street types who wrecked the economy say so. Is everybody happy?

by Anonymousreply 3201/15/2013

His speech today was worth every single ounce of support he got from us.

by Anonymousreply 3301/21/2013

You're for sale pretty cheap, r33

by Anonymousreply 3401/24/2013

Obama is bound to disappoint us again. That's the nature of American politics.

by Anonymousreply 3501/24/2013

lET'S ALL talk in 6 months

by Anonymousreply 3601/24/2013

But... but... but... he delivers a great speech! That's what's really important, OP! How dare you question him!

by Anonymousreply 3701/24/2013

[quote]Obama is bound to disappoint us again. That's the nature of American politics.

Obama is bound to disappoint us again. That's the nature of American identity politics, and the strange defense made for half-baked minorities.

by Anonymousreply 3801/25/2013

Obama is certainly better than ANY if the alternatives.

by Anonymousreply 3901/25/2013

Oh bull r39 -- the media acted as if the only black politicians in the US were Obama and Sharpton. There are dozens of experienced, savvy, blacks in office would should have been groomed for a presidential run, but instead, they chose the African's son who doesn't have a black bone in his body.

by Anonymousreply 4001/25/2013

You do realize we have checks and balances right? Republican controlled congress, Slight democratic Majority in the senate - You act like he has carte blance to make all the laws he wants. Most the list of conservative things he has done were in apeasement of a Republican controlled congress to get some more middle of the road social programs through.

by Anonymousreply 4101/25/2013

You lost.

by Anonymousreply 4201/25/2013

[quote]Obama is certainly better than ANY if the alternatives.

And may I add; clearly better than any of the alternatives.

by Anonymousreply 4301/25/2013

r38 r40

But liberals still make their dumb excuses for Obama

by Anonymousreply 4401/25/2013

"There are dozens of experienced, savvy, blacks in office would should have been groomed for a presidential run, but instead, they chose the African's son who doesn't have a black bone in his body."

I'm available.

by Anonymousreply 4501/25/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.