[QUOTE=Spooter;34213271]Think of it what you will, he went back on his veto threat only because his demands were met. I see that as him sticking to his guns, where-ever those guns may be pointed. Again, doesn't matter because AMUF.[/QUOTE]
how is that any defense of obama, at all?
it's like saying he "stuck to his guns" by following through on a promise to kill babies with silly names, just because he followed through on something doesn't mean it's any good. to be honest your posts just make me think he's less weak willed and more a cunt that has no regards for american citizens, which is even worse imo
[editline]14th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;34213273]Correct me if I'm wrong(really I want to be) but didn't he just say that it'd be like that as long as he was in office to keep it that way?[/QUOTE]
it still affects citizens while he's in office, he just promised that he wouldn't take advantage of it while in office
he'd better actually follow up on this
I want to believe it, but I don't. His attorney general is out there in front of cameras telling people to rat on their neighbors for downloading. He stood by and allowed a massive rollback of civil liberties and privacy. Obama has not stood up to the copyright lobby in any way, shape or form.
I'll see how he responds if (or rather when) the bill actually passes, but right now I'm not holding my breath.
People are still worrying about SOPA?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34213315]how is that any defense of obama, at all?
it's like saying he "stuck to his guns" by following through on a promise to kill babies with silly names, just because he followed through on something doesn't mean it's any good. to be honest your posts just make me think he's less weak willed and more a cunt that has no regards for american citizens, which is even worse imo
[editline]14th January 2012[/editline]
it still affects citizens while he's in office, he just promised that he wouldn't take advantage of it while in office[/QUOTE]
Well it's a defense against people who say he's going to go back on what he's said about SOPA.
I still think that the two provisions from the NDAA were blown wildly out of proportion. It's not so much the government trying to destroy the rights of U.S. citizens, more the government trying to destroy the rights of terrorists and our rights being collateral damage out of shortsightedness. If the government wanted to detain it's detractors it would have done it already with the AMUF.
[QUOTE=Santz;34212788]The NDAA wasn't affecting average american citizens or legal aliens, there was no problem in signing it.[/QUOTE]
I see plenty of problems with it.
Suppose we made a law in Holland that says "we'll arrest any American that we do not like, not give him a trial, and potentially torture him until he dies"
You'd say "Oh, cool?"
[QUOTE=Paramud;34213370]People are still worrying about SOPA?[/QUOTE]
I'll stop worrying about it when it's dead and buried.
Along with it's creator.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Lamar_Smith%2C_Official_Portrait%2C_c112th_Congress.jpg/220px-Lamar_Smith%2C_Official_Portrait%2C_c112th_Congress.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Spooter;34213271]Think of it what you will, he went back on his veto threat only because his demands were met. I see that as him sticking to his guns, where-ever those guns may be pointed. Again, doesn't matter because AMUF.[/QUOTE]
Not defending, but even if he decided to veto NDAA, it would be political suicide. A lose/lose situation:
Sign: Break veto promise, people get pissed, Republicans can use this against the Dems and the President.
Veto: Congress overrides the veto(93 voted for this bill in the Senate, way over 2/3rds), looks horrible against the President, probably would lose 2012 election.
[QUOTE=Medevilae;34213593]NDAA does not affect American citizens or legal aliens.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/new-bill-known-as-enemy-expatriation-act-would-allow-government-to-strip-citizenship-without-conviction/[/url]
edit - [url]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166[/url]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34213217]so his entire reasoning behind hating NDAA in the first place was he was afraid he'd LOSE the power to violate the rights of american citizens?
wow that's so reassuring!
[editline]14th January 2012[/editline]
obama isn't held accountable for anything, no matter how often he messes up, apparently even his extremely weak will and willingness to sacrifice his alleged principles and the rights of american citizens for the sake of our bloated military budget is the republican's fault as well.[/QUOTE]
I didn't blame republicans, but [I]how fucking long can you not give the military money.[/I] If he didn't sign it he'd be bashed by a ton of people, he signed it so he's bashed by more. It's how the game of politics is played. Force your enemies into a horrible situation where the only outcomes are bad.
If someone see Lamar Smith on the street, spit him in the face
[QUOTE=Spooter;34213399]Well it's a defense against people who say he's going to go back on what he's said about SOPA.
I still think that the two provisions from the NDAA were blown wildly out of proportion. It's not so much the government trying to destroy the rights of U.S. citizens, more the government trying to destroy the rights of terrorists and our rights being collateral damage out of shortsightedness. If the government wanted to detain it's detractors it would have done it already with the AMUF.[/QUOTE]
it doesn't matter what YOU think their motives are, what does matter is what power they now have, and what they can do to american citizens thanks to this bill. it's not being blown out of proportion, if anything it's the subject of numerous excuses and a topic which apologists LOVE to pretend isn't important.
[QUOTE=Medevilae;34213593][B]NDAA does not affect American citizens or legal aliens[/B].
Would laugh my ass off that you thought you could enforce it.[/QUOTE]
yes it does, go back and read previous threads, [B]we've been over this[/B]
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;34213753]I didn't blame republicans, but [I]how fucking long can you not give the military money.[/I] If he didn't sign it he'd be bashed by a ton of people, he signed it so he's bashed by more. It's how the game of politics is played. Force your enemies into a horrible situation where the only outcomes are bad.[/QUOTE]
so signing away our rights is less important than him getting bashed?
wow now i finally have confidence in obama, thanks!
[QUOTE=Medevilae;34213914]Bill is not passed, will not pass.[/QUOTE]
this is exactly what people said when the news broke about NDAA allowing detention of american citizens
yet somehow that one managed to slip through
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34213905]it doesn't matter what YOU think their motives are, what does matter is what power they now have, and what they can do to american citizens thanks to this bill. it's not being blown out of proportion, if anything it's the subject of numerous excuses and a topic which apologists LOVE to pretend isn't important.
[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with it, but it isn't important. The AMUF has allowed the president to do what the NDAA codified for the last decade. I'm not going to piss my pants because evidence has shown that the government isn't using that power on anybody but terrorists or suspected terrorists (even if the latter didn't do it). It's stupid, it needs to be gone back on, but it's hardly the end of American freedom as we know it.
Wasn't there a topic on this exact same response where people were critical of the response?
EDIT: There was.
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1155524[/url]
But hey, now a Kotaku article is interpreting a response that is basically more policy rhetoric to say that they're definitely on our side. Great!
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;34214191]Wasn't there a topic on this exact same response where people were critical of the response?
EDIT: There was.
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1155524[/url][/QUOTE]
But that posted the whole response, this was just a cheery headline and a link to a Kotaku article.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34213905]it doesn't matter what YOU think their motives are, what does matter is what power they now have, and what they can do to american citizens thanks to this bill. it's not being blown out of proportion, if anything it's the subject of numerous excuses and a topic which apologists LOVE to pretend isn't important.
yes it does, go back and read previous threads, [B]we've been over this[/B]
so signing away our rights is less important than him getting bashed?
wow now i finally have confidence in obama, thanks![/QUOTE]
[I]He would've gotten bashed either way but he couldn't just let the military not have money, it was a lose-lose situation.[/I]
Will you fucking read my posts.
Didn't Obama say some time ago, that if SOPA arrived on his desk, he would veto it?
Was probably something else.
[quote]Spooter
monkey11
Mio Akiyama
sirpopsalot_[/quote]
young whippersnappers who don't remember the X-files
Good, SOPA is gonna die
The wording of the official release does not, at any point, directly condemn SOPA. I think people are jumping to conclusions a little quick here.
They'll probably try to pass it claiming it fights terrorism instead.
Go Go Team Obama.
[QUOTE=Medevilae;34213593]
Would laugh my ass off that you thought you could enforce it.[/QUOTE]
How is that any different from NDAA? Other than that my country doesn't wave it's massive steroid infested military cock around every time it does something?
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;34214783][I]He would've gotten bashed either way but he couldn't just let the military not have money, it was a lose-lose situation.[/I]
Will you fucking read my posts.[/QUOTE]
yeah i read your post and i fully understand it
believe it or not it's possible to think you're being stupid without misunderstanding what you said!
i know it was a lose-lose situation, but the path he took was infinitely worse than the path he COULD have taken. i would have applauded him for telling everybody to fuck off, trying to slip horrible provisions into a bloated budget bill, and i'm sure tons of people would as well! the path he chose was one that is entirely deplorable and unsupportable. just because it's a "lose-lose" situation doesn't mean there weren't two options, both of which involved getting yelled at, but only ONE OF WHICH involved violating the rights of american citizens
[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;34212727]Say what you may about the man, but at least he sees whats wrong with this bill unlike the republicans and some democrats in Congress.[/QUOTE]
He expressed his displeasure at NDAA while he was signing it a few weeks ago, in case you forgot.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34213935]this is exactly what people said when the news broke about NDAA allowing detention of american citizens
yet somehow that one managed to slip through[/QUOTE]
lmao anyone with half a brain should have known the NDAA would pass.
it's really just evidence that the president needs a line item veto
[QUOTE=Lazor;34219171]lmao anyone with half a brain should have known the NDAA would pass.
it's really just evidence that the president needs a line item veto[/QUOTE]
Line item vetos are a bad idea. How about instead we hold our representatives accountable for what they foist upon us?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.