What change? Obama personally signs PATRIOT ACT extension. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30131589]lol at the obama apologists obama is a bad president just for this signature at the very least not to mention all the other stupid shit he has done[/QUOTE] when did you become retarded [editline]30th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30115131][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China[/url][/QUOTE] what does china have to do with anything the US DOES have the most inmates in the world

[QUOTE=JDK721;30131733]when did you become retarded[/QUOTE] since forever jdk you should know i dislike obama i say it in most of his fuckup threads [QUOTE=Megafanx13;30131664]"Obama apologists"? You act as if I'm defending some war criminal. This is a bad policy and should not have been signed, but you've got to be out of your mind to think he's worse than Bush.[/QUOTE] never said he was he is [I]slightly[/I] better than bush but even slightly better than bush is still bad

You sound like somebody who'd be arguing for Bush. I'm quite sure I've seen those same exact arguments. To make it fun I'll just provide some modification and maybe some expansion/explanation where needed. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;30131326]It would have been political suicide for Bush to oppose any anti-terrorism plan. I'm sure he would haven't had done it if he didn't have so much pressure on him. Also kind of unsolvable. If we closed Guantanamo, where would we put the prisoners? I doubt Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. want them back. [B](left unchanged because there are no changes needed, this is what Bush supporters said)[/B] Who? ([B]the issue with this is that assassinations are kept secret with the exception of Osama Bin Laden. Yes people were claiming that Bush was ordering assassinations, but just like with Obama there isn't much to prove this because this kind of stuff is secret. The president does have authority to issue assassinations.[/B] You know just as well as I do it was the right thing to do. He had the approval of congress, and was extremely cautious in going into to doing anything in Afghanistan and Iraq. ([B]note that both of these were planned to be take down missions and were never intended to be long term)[/B][/QUOTE] Anyway... [QUOTE=yawmwen;30131807]never said he was he is [I]slightly[/I] better than bush but even slightly better than bush is still bad[/QUOTE] I like some of the things Obama has done. Stopping medical marijuana raids, stopping torture, likely more things that I can't remember. But in my mind, the things bad things far outweigh the good.

[quote]Yeah, how dare he try to get healthcare to more people![/quote] wait who did this? because obama sure as hell didnt [editline]30th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;30131856] I like some of the things Obama has done. Stopping medical marijuana raids, stopping torture, likely more things that I can't remember. But in my mind, the things bad things far outweigh the good.[/QUOTE] the marijuana thing is good but he never stopped torture

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30131894]the marijuana thing is good but he never stopped torture[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure this has to do with that: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7847405.stm[/url] He signed an executive order banning harsh interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding. [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;30131856]You sound like somebody who'd be arguing for Bush. I'm quite sure I've seen those same exact arguments. To make it fun I'll just provide some modification and maybe some expansion/explanation where needed.[/QUOTE] Except that I'm not saying Guantanamo needs no change. It definitely needs change, there's just no real way to do it without fucking it up. If it's kept secret then how do you they're doing assassinations? Libyan intervention is really not comparable to Afghanistan and Iraq, mainly because the US wasn't the one leading the effort to intervene. [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] If this sounds like an argument defending Bush policies, that's probably because Obama was left with a shitheap of bad policies when entering office, and cleaning them up is no easy task.

Whoa would you look at that Democrats and Republicans finally working together to take away our rights! Teamwork, yeah!

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30132025]I'm pretty sure this has to do with that: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7847405.stm[/url] He signed an executive order banning harsh interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding. [/QUOTE] unless he also banned rendition, torture is still on the table [editline]30th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;30132025] Except that I'm not saying Guantanamo needs no change. It definitely needs change, there's just no real way to do it without fucking it up.[/quote] 2 step process 1. shut down guantanamo 2. transfer all prisoners to supermax in the usa [editline]30th May 2011[/editline] also: [quote] Techniques it does allow include: [I]Good cop, bad cop (known in the US as Mutt and Jeff)[/quote] [/I]iv never heard it called mutt and jeff lol maybe thats a cia lingo but its always known as good cop bad cop to ordinary citizens

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30132025]Except that I'm not saying Guantanamo needs no change. It definitely needs change, there's just no real way to do it without fucking it up. If it's kept secret then how do you they're doing assassinations? Libyan intervention is really not comparable to Afghanistan and Iraq, mainly because the US wasn't the one leading the effort to intervene. If this sounds like an argument defending Bush policies, that's probably because Obama was left with a shitheap of bad policies when entering office, and cleaning them up is no easy task.[/QUOTE] Which is what people argued during the Bush era. That's a necessary evil. I'm not claiming that either have ordered assassinations, what I am claiming is that the president has the power to do so thus people assume they have. Missing the point with this one because I'm not trying to show how this war is like the others, rather that the rational for involvement is pretty similar. I feel confident in saying that Obama isn't the main one making decisions. Same goes for Bush when he was in office. Both candidates did the opposite of what they initially campaigned on. I think the CIA is a big factor in this. A good example of this is the Bay of Pigs, the CIA convinced JFK that it would be a great idea. Second example is the whole WMDs with Bush. I'm willing to insinuate that the CIA pushed Obama to intervene in Libya. In case you can't tell, I don't like the CIA and I don't trust them.

[QUOTE=Pepin;30133051]Which is what people argued during the Bush era. That's a necessary evil. I'm not claiming that either have ordered assassinations, what I am claiming is that the president has the power to do so thus people assume they have. Missing the point with this one because I'm not trying to show how this war is like the others, rather that the rational for involvement is pretty similar. I feel confident in saying that Obama isn't the main one making decisions. Same goes for Bush when he was in office. Both candidates did the opposite of what they initially campaigned on. I think the CIA is a big factor in this. A good example of this is the Bay of Pigs, the CIA convinced JFK that it would be a great idea. Second example is the whole WMDs with Bush. I'm willing to insinuate that the CIA pushed Obama to intervene in Libya. In case you can't tell, I don't like the CIA and I don't trust them.[/QUOTE] i dont trust the cia either bro they are actually really scary when you think about what type of power they have

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30132116] 2 step process 1. shut down guantanamo 2. transfer all prisoners to supermax in the usa[/QUOTE] Yes lets put more prisoners in prisons where there aren't space for more prisoners. Good idea.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30132025]I'm pretty sure this has to do with that: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7847405.stm[/url] He signed an executive order banning harsh interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding. .[/QUOTE] Honest question without trying to be smarmy: Do you really believe that changes anything? CIA interrogators are still going to act well outside of regulations.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30133865]Honest question without trying to be smarmy: Do you really believe that changes anything? CIA interrogators are still going to act well outside of regulations.[/QUOTE] Well beyond this, there's nothing Obama can actually do about it, so I use it as part of me making judgements about his presidency. I really don't like a lot of the thing the CIA does, but I'm talking about effort on Obama's part here.

[QUOTE=LarparNar;30133394]Yes lets put more prisoners in prisons where there aren't space for more prisoners. Good idea.[/QUOTE] build a couple more i think if theres one thing the federal government can afford to do its increase the amount of supermax prison space to accommodate for terrorists also a lot of the detainees havent even been tried or convicted, and could be innocent(there actually are a few innocent people that have been locked up there), so that lowers the number of potential inmates [QUOTE=Megafanx13;30134314]Well beyond this, there's nothing Obama can actually do about it, so I use it as part of me making judgements about his presidency. I really don't like a lot of the thing the CIA does, but I'm talking about effort on Obama's part here.[/QUOTE] that is a good point, but like i said, unless he banned rendition his "effort" seems mostly show

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30131326]It would have been political suicide to oppose it at this point. I doubt it was something he actively wanted to do.[/quote] Actually, no. Nobody wanted this to get passed except for the power hungry congressmen. The people didn't want to see this shit continue. [quote]Also kind of unsolvable. If we closed Guantanamo, where would we put the prisoners? I doubt Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. want them back.[/quote] Military tribunal, and then release or execute, depending on the court's choice. [quote]Who?[/quote] bin Laden [quote]Yeah, how dare he try to get healthcare to more people![/quote] How dare he allow an agency to threaten to shut down air travel to an entire state because of a law. [quote]You know just as well as I do it was the right thing to do. He had the approval of the UN and the rest of NATO, and was extremely cautious in going into to doing anything in Libya.[/quote] He still doesn't have approval of Congress, which is what everybody bitched about when Bush did it. [quote]Oh no, however will we live down the shame of giving someone an iPod?[/quote] Or the Prime Minister US-region DVDs, or the kids some cheap plastic toys. Hell, this most recent trip he gave them autographed copies of his biography. [quote]If by a pushover, you mean not doing things recklessly and being modest, than I'd rather he be a pushover.[/quote] I mean doing what is best for his country, and not trying to be everybody's friend. [quote]Do not kid yourself. Obama is far better than Bush.[/QUOTE] I've yet to see much suggesting it.

[QUOTE=Ridge;30134585] Military tribunal, and then release or execute, depending on the court's choice. [/QUOTE] ahahaha no normal trial, no death penalty

[QUOTE=Ridge;30134585]Military tribunal, and then release or execute, depending on the court's choice.[/quote] Try them as what? Foreign military? Basic criminal? It's just not possible. [QUOTE=Ridge;30134585]bin Laden[/quote] Oh yeah because that was so awful. [QUOTE=Ridge;30134585]How dare he allow an agency to threaten to shut down air travel to an entire state because of a law.[/quote] The TSA did this, just because Obama didn't personally go to stop them from threatening Texas doesn't make it his fault, he's got way more important shit on his plate. [QUOTE=Ridge;30134585]He still doesn't have approval of Congress, which is what everybody bitched about when Bush did it.[/quote] Except the difference here is that it wasn't the US's idea, has approval by the UN and NATO, and is legally a peace-keeping action in accordance with the UN resolution. [QUOTE=Ridge;30134585]Or the Prime Minister US-region DVDs, or the kids some cheap plastic toys. Hell, this most recent trip he gave them autographed copies of his biography.[/quote] Again, that's [I]really[/I] trivial stuff. It's not worth criticism or fuss. [QUOTE=Ridge;30134585]I mean doing what is best for his country, and not trying to be everybody's friend.[/quote] Except that your idea of 'what's best for the country' would essentially require him to be a Republican or Libertarian.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30135048] The TSA did this, just because Obama didn't personally go to stop them from threatening Texas doesn't make it his fault, he's got way more important shit on his plate.[/QUOTE] although i mostly agree with you here, saying that he has more important shit on his plate than the tsa essentially banning all flights from the biggest economy in the united states is a cop-out he damn well knew and allowed the tsa to do what they did and i dont necessarily disagree with his decision, although texas' intentions were noble, a state shouldnt be allowed to decide what is appropriate security measures when a federal agency has that job, it sets a very bad precedent of states basically ignoring the tsa and doing whatever they want which could endanger commerce and transportation throughout the country

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30135094]although i mostly agree with you here, saying that he has more important shit on his plate than the tsa essentially banning all flights from the biggest economy in the united states is a cop-out[/QUOTE] I agree it's not the best reason, but in the same sense that it would set a bad precedent if states ignored federal agencies, it would show a bad image if the president had to be the guy going around policing the federal agencies. Keep in mind I'm no Obama fanatic, I'm just trying to tell it like it is.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30135235]I agree it's not the best reason, but in the same sense that it would set a bad precedent if states ignored federal agencies, it would show a bad image if the president had to be the guy going around policing the federal agencies. Keep in mind I'm no Obama fanatic, I'm just trying to tell it like it is.[/QUOTE] that is also an excellent point the point of these agencies is to do work without the president being directly involved, micromanaging these agencies is counter productive and makes him look weak [editline]30th May 2011[/editline] im only saying that obama did know about what was happening and actively decided to stay out of it(and side with the tsa by extension), he didnt just say "oops not important compared to all the other shit im doing right now"

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30135290]im only saying that obama did know about what was happening and actively decided to stay out of it(and side with the tsa by extension), he didnt just say "oops not important compared to all the other shit im doing right now"[/QUOTE] That's a fair point. I'll concede that he certainly could've done more.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;30131807]since forever jdk you should know i dislike obama i say it in most of his fuckup threads never said he was he is [I]slightly[/I] better than bush but even slightly better than bush is still bad[/QUOTE] i still love you

[QUOTE=Ridge;30130294]Makes the country look bad on the world stage with awful things like giving the Queen a damned iPod.[/QUOTE] Now I just think you have a hardon for making obama look bad. [editline]30th May 2011[/editline] he gave the queen a ipod oh nooo maybe he'll put dijon mustard on his sandwich next

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30135048] Except the difference here is that it wasn't the US's idea, has approval by the UN and NATO, and is legally a peace-keeping action in accordance with the UN resolution.[/QUOTE] But not congress, which he needs.

This just in: Automatic pen signing is now "personally signing".

Heres all he has to do. Veto that shit. How fucking SIMPLE is that? Quit playing politics you fucking cunt. God damnit.

[QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;30140821]Heres all he has to do. Veto that shit. How fucking SIMPLE is that? Quit playing politics you fucking cunt. God damnit.[/QUOTE] then the veto would probably be overwritten by congress

Its extremely hard to overwrite a veto and has only been done a handful of times. [editline]30th May 2011[/editline] Also the patriot act gives the government the ability to classify any assembling group of people as a terrorist threat and can be dealt with by force, and up to two months imprisonment without charge. [editline]30th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;30083339]Washington was one of the rich elite who owned slaves. Lets not have another one of those pricks. And he wanted Britain gone so he could take power.[/QUOTE] Uh dude, Washington didn't take power. He was appointed as president by an entire group of people, and it was the only presidential election where literally 100% of people voted for him. Not to mention back then there were no term limits yet he stepped down, peacefully on his own accord. Yea, so what he owned slaves. That doesn't mean he was Simon Legree and treated them like shit. He had a lot of land and farms to take care of and back then slavery was the work force. All accounts I've heard is that he treated his slaves like family. Also, in his will, he freed all his slaves upon his wife's death. His wife died after he did though. Not only this, but he signed the northwest ordnance of 1787 which not only created the territory but banned slavery in it. Also you are fucking retarded for saying "hurr durr he wanted power so he fought britain", literally with the exception of 15,000 people, the entire country wanted England out of their lives. What people who say that the revolution was by rich whites don't realize is that Britain's taxes such as the stamp act affected literally everyone who used paper, which, was everybody. In addition to this these taxes were imposed arbitrarily and without representation. The taxes only affected merchants until the stamp act, then it affected everyone.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;30140895]then the veto would probably be overwritten by congress[/QUOTE] And that's the way the government is supposed to work. If you are opposed to legislation, don't sign it just because others like it. That's not how our system is supposed to work. [editline]30th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;30137739]Now I just think you have a hardon for making obama look bad. [editline]30th May 2011[/editline] he gave the queen a ipod oh nooo maybe he'll put dijon mustard on his sandwich next[/QUOTE] He was given a piece of a famous ship, and he gave them region 1 DVDs. That sort of discrepancy is grossly inappropriate. [editline]30th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;30134604]ahahaha no normal trial, no death penalty[/QUOTE] Why should they get tried in civilian courts? They are not members of society. They are foreign soldiers captured on the battlefield killing American troops.

Lol I love you people. "I'll never vote for him now!" Lol OK now you can vote for Palin instead glhf.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;30140895]then the veto would probably be overwritten by congress[/QUOTE] And? At least it would show he fucking tried. Which is what I don't see a lot of from many people in the government. Just stupid talk.