2012 U.S. Presidency

[DeletedUser]

First, I did not omit anything. You made a statement, I asked about it. I did not care about all the other non-related crap you spewed

I see, so you didn't omit anything --- except the non-related crap that I spewed. Interesting...

just the context of the one sentence which is out of line with the popular view of the US media and Civil Rights organizations like the ACLU, EFF, and others.

Popular view? So facts and evidence in law statutes is irrelevant? I like how you think... no, really, it's like the guy that advocates mob mentality.

I state the facts and evidence in law while you vie for the popular view in media.

*cheers*

Politifact even says no changes in the law was made

There you are being deceptive again.

You are completely ignoring (or intentionally not mentioning) the executive provisions enacted through the Department of Justice:

• Implemented a requirement that, when library or bookseller records are sought via a Section 215 order for business records, a statement of specific and articulable facts showing relevance to an authorized investigation must be produced;
• Adopted a policy requiring the FBI to retain a statement of facts showing that the information sought through a National Security Letter (NSL) is relevant to an authorized investigation, to facilitate better auditing and accountability;
• Adopted procedures to provide notification to recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest any nondisclosure requirement attached to the NSL;
• Agreed to ensure that NSL recipients who challenge nondisclosure orders are notified by the FBI when compliance with such nondisclosure orders are no longer required;
• Adopted procedures for the collection, use and storage of information derived from National Security Letters, which were approved by Attorney General Holder on October 1, 2010.

You also failed to mention that in both Politifact reports on Obama's promises, these were deemed compromises. I.e., compromises with the obstructionist GOP:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-the-patriot-act-to-increase-oversight-on-go/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/180/end-warrantless-wiretaps/

Once again, you fail to make your case and merely reaffirm that the problem is not with Obama, but with a GOP that forces Obama to compromise on occasion in order to get things done. This is intentional by the GOP, as any "fail" of Obama's is a "win" in their books, regardless of whether it ends up also being a "fail" for the People.

As to the media and other claims, such as Kucinich' rant, Politific ranked them as half-truths, just as your posts are half-truths:

It's too bad you fall for, and reiterate, the political rhetoric. But it is what it is...

 

[DeletedUser]

I see, so you didn't omit anything --- except the non-related crap that I spewed. Interesting...

Yes, I didn't find anything outside of conventional wisdom with the other crap you spewed and did not challenge that. In fact, I did not challenge anything, I only asked for sources supporting your one assertion in which I quoted. I'm not sure why you think I need to quote everything else you said, or even pretend that I am against it somehow simply because I asked you to support one part of a claim you made.

Popular view? So facts and evidence in law statutes is irrelevant? I like how you think... no, really, it's like the guy that advocates mob mentality.

I state the facts and evidence in law while you vie for the popular view in media.

Man, some people are just screwed in the head or something. I asked you for the facts, for references that say the same as you said. Instead you turned it into an attack on me and have still failed to provide any facts outside your opinion while claiming some holy grail of truthfulness. Your opinion does not equal facts, law, or evidence of anything other then how your mind works. Do not try to turn my disbelief in your assertions into a problem with me. Like I said, everyone else who isn't brainwashed thinks something different went down.

There you are being deceptive again.

You are completely ignoring (or intentionally not mentioning) the executive provisions enacted through the Department of Justice:

Wow. What does "voluntary procedures enacted by executive order or department policies that are not legally binding" mean to you? That's all that is.

The only deception here is you. Going back and reading other posts you made in this thread, it is obvious that you are little more then a blind political shill who attempts to paint the side you dislike as evil as possible while sugarcoating the same crap on the side you like as if they can walk on water or raise the dead. Executive order and department policy is not changes in "evidence in law statutes". Executive order and departments of the US government cannot change law, only regulation within the law and only when congress gives them the explicit power to do so through passage of a law. Executive orders only control how departments implement operations and are not binding under the law unless congress through the passage of a law gives the ability for it to change regulation within the law. The states are not even bound by the executive orders or DOJ procedures when taking advantage of provisions within the patriot act.

This conversation is over. You lost when you lost sight of reality and was blinded by your own political ideology. Your vapid rant that boils down to "I really want to believe" is insulting to everyone who browsed this forum and serves no legitimate purpose outside of you attempting to bully people around and into a similar political mindset or ideology. You could have saved yourself a whole lot of credibility and time if you held off your personal attacks and simply stated that he couldn't get the law changed so he wrote executive orders ensuring the departments of the government follow the procedures and guidelines he claims makes it constitutional. Instead, you went down in a blaze of pathetic glory and failed miserable. I'm saddened that I was remotely a part of it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmm, let's see...

The problem with hypocritical idiots is...

Who started up with the insults?

Anyway, if your posing was a question, I answered it in previous posts. That I was tasked to yet again point out things merely drove the discussion into nauseating redundancy that unfortunately was necessary because silence was misconstrued. And while you may have enjoyed calling me a hypocritical idiotic schill, ultimately this thread is about posing thoughts on prospective Presidential candidates, not on the posters in this thread. So, while I witnessed ample "created," "concocted," and "contrived" reasons arguing Obama didn't deliver on everything he promised (despite delivering on substantially more promises than any prior U.S. President), I have yet to hear even one good reason to vote for Romney.

So, really, who's the schill? I'm reading this thread and seeing a smear campaign, not fact-finding, and nothing to indicate that voting a Republican into office will remove any of the issues you are raging about, as the Republican previously in the Executive office put those issues there and the Republicans in Congress have steadfastly fought to keep them in place.

 

[DeletedUser]

Who started up with the insults?

You did. First you implied I wasn't smart with your first response because I only quoted one sentence and asked for a source, then you directly insulted my integrity by claiming I was attempting to deceive people and manipulate the truth and inserted a political motivation to it because I didn't automatically worship your divinity or something.

Anyway, if your posing was a question, I answered it in previous posts. That I was tasked to yet again point out things merely drove the discussion into nauseating redundancy that unfortunately was necessary because silence was misconstrued. And while you may have enjoyed calling me a hypocritical idiotic schill, ultimately this thread is about posing thoughts on prospective Presidential candidates, not on the posters in this thread.

All I asked for was the sources that made you believe that was true. I wasn't interested in more of your opinion about it or you implying someone I'm not as smart as others or that I was attempting to twist your words. I wanted to see if anyone beside you actually thought it was true too and why. You failed to provide sources until you quoted politicfact which states that all he did was change the policy procedures the federal government openly uses when accessing the offending crap the patriot act permits. Despite your attempt to claim otherwise, this is not a change in the law either.

So, while I witnessed ample "created," "concocted," and "contrived" reasons arguing Obama didn't deliver on everything he promised (despite delivering on substantially more promises than any prior U.S. President), I have yet to hear even one good reason to vote for Romney.

You will not find too many people venturing into this forum to support Romney for the reasons I stated in my previous post. Why should anyone say anything counter to you when it is obvious what kind of abuse waits in return.

Truthfully, a global game forum should not be involved in country specific politics anyways.

So, really, who's the schill? I'm reading this thread and seeing a smear campaign, not fact-finding, and nothing to indicate that voting a Republican into office will remove any of the issues you are raging about, as the Republican previously in the Executive office put those issues there and the Republicans in Congress have steadfastly fought to keep them in place.

You cannot blame the republicans by themselves. This is a bipartisan problem that both parties created and supported and neither want to remove. That is a fact you should be finding yourself.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/obama-backs-expiring-patriot-act-spy-provisions/
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/27/nation/la-na-patriot-act-20110527

 

[DeletedUser]

You did.

O'RLy?

What a fancy to find you so conveniently forgetting your opening derogations, which were included in your faux question:

Perhaps it isn't his jadedness but rather someone's fanboyism getting the better of reality here?

No kid, you tainted your so-called question with a derogatory remark. In fact, you waltzed into this conversation, fresh from another debate in which you firmly demonstrated you're camping Republican, with yer guns ready an' lookin' fer another fight. But seein' as ya jes' got yer arse handed ta ya, whatya know ... ya pull out tha victim card.

An' me without no pity cards, a damn shame.

(( Also, I never called you not smart, I said I didn't reply to your post because I figured everyone else would be smart enough to see what you did there with the cut/paste. Meh... ))

As to the articles, you're running in circles with your arguments and completely ignoring what I earlier presented, fixating on the 2011 voting session to extend three previously edited provisions of the Patriot Act, and arguing co-conspiracy.

Seriously, you want me to repeat myself yet again? I mean I will if you think it's truly necessary to explain the parts where you're still confused.

 

[DeletedUser]

O'RLy?

What a fancy to find you so conveniently forgetting your opening derogations, which were included in your faux question:

No kid, you tainted your so-called question with a derogatory remark.

Umm.. you are a fanboy and it wasn't intended as derogatory. If you took it that way, I apologize but it is something quite a few people see in you.

In fact, you waltzed into this conversation, fresh from another debate in which you firmly demonstrated you're camping Republican, with yer guns ready an' lookin' fer another fight. But seein' as ya jes' got yer arse handed ta ya, whatya know ... ya pull out tha victim card.

First of all, you are dreaming if you think you or anyone here has handed anything to me. Second, what the hell are you talking about? I never claimed to be a republican. Please limit our interactions to those that really happen and not ones taking place within your mind.

(( Also, I never called you not smart, I said I didn't reply to your post because I figured everyone else would be smart enough to see what you did there with the cut/paste. Meh... ))

What exactly did I do with the cut and paste? If it was anything other then post a specific sentence you said that conveyed a specific message and asked for you sources on that specific statement, you would be wrong in thinking so.

As to the articles, you're running in circles with your arguments and completely ignoring what I earlier presented, fixating on the 2011 voting session to extend three previously edited provisions of the Patriot Act, and arguing co-conspiracy.

The patriot act has been amended once and that was in 2005. It has been extended 4 times since it's inception, in 2005 with the only changes ever made to the law through the patriot act itself, in 2009 where a 2 or 3 month extension with no changes or revisions was passed specifically to hammer out differences between a house and senate bill, a one year extension with no changes or revisions in 2010 when those changes didn't seem reconcilable, and finally in 2011 when President Obama signed the extensions to the very same Patriot act that was made into law in 2005 without any changes or extensions.

I have no clue where you are getting this 3 previously edited from, but it isn't anything to do with the topic at hand nor US law.

Seriously, you want me to repeat myself yet again? I mean I will if you think it's truly necessary to explain the parts where you're still confused.

What exactly am I saying that is so difficult for you to understand? What part of show me some sources for this claim is so bewildering to you?

I do not care about what you have to say on the topic. You are not a source. You repeating yourself is not a source. You linking to another post written by you and unsourced is not a source. Talking louder or more often then someone else is not a source. Badgering and belittling people is not a source. Insulting people, purposely misconstruing their post in order to start a flame war and distract from the post is not a source. Do you understand now? You made a comment that doesn't jive with reality and I asked if you had some sources to back it up.

 

[DeletedUser]

Omg, answer my PM already, sheesh.

Umm.. you are a fanboy and it wasn't intended as derogatory. If you took it that way, I apologize but it is something quite a few people see in you.

Oh that's full of crap. It was intended as a derogatory, a means to attack my character in an attempt to discredit my input in this discussion of political candidates to the Presidency.

As to the Patriot Act, once again I state to take it to a different thread for further discussion.

 

[DeletedUser]

What PM? Do you mean the message from the other day when I logged in where you wanted to talk in PM? First, I'm not sure if I have PM on my setup, I'm using Firefox. Second, I'm not sure what we would need to speak about in private that we can't right here. Finally, I have made the mistake of giving instant messaging handles out to forum trolls in the past and do not think I want to start that mess all over again.

Oh that's full of crap. It was intended as a derogatory, a means to attack my character in an attempt to discredit my input in this discussion of political candidates to the Presidency.

Being a fanboy is just that, a fan of something. In hind sight, the "getting the better of your reality" could possibly be construed as an attempt to discredit your authority in the discussion. But I must insist that had you provided sources for your claim as requested, all discrediting would have been mooted. Of course failing to provide sources serves more to discredit the premise then any name calling or misconstruing of words. As I said, I appologise if you took it that way, it wasn't intended.

As to the Patriot Act, once again I state to take it to a different thread for further discussion.

This thread is just fine the way it is. You started this off attempting to slam every possible rival to President Obama then raced to his defense with inaccurate and misleading statements. The only reason the patriot act came up is because of a statement you made to protect President Obama from some very legitimate criticisms someone else was making with a statement about the Patriot act that happened to be inaccurate.

It is almost like you want it both way, the ability to slam anyone remotely challenging President Obama on any grounds possible and all legitimate criticisms of him moved to another corner of the world not to tarnish his glowing reputation as you see it. I do not think that is proper. This thread is called the US 2012 presidency and is poised to appear to be a critical examination of the political races to elect a US president in 2012. If it makes you uncomfortable to be wrong or see your favorite guy bashed by the truth, then perhaps you should not participate.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well this thread has turned into a discussion between you and I, as opposed to a community debate, but that is not the reason I sent you a PM. Kidkade, the vBulletin forum includes a private messaging system of its own, so you can interact with others in the forums via the PMing system. Regarding your concerns, I don't troll people via PMs (usually the other way around) and my PM does not pertain to this or any other debate.

Right, back to the debate.

Your apology is not accepted, as saying, "i'm sorry you took it that way" is not truly an apology, but a backhanded dismissal. Fact is, you entered into this discussion with a derogatory, followed up with additional derogatories and you then escalated into direct insults. And then, you had the audacity to pull out the victim card...

Moving on, I could get all silly and point out I started this thread with the specific intent of encouraging community members to discuss U.S. Presidential candidates, so the parameters of this discussion were set by me, but I doubt that matters to you. Your focus here is to avoid discussing Presidential candidates and instead debate a side-issue, that of the Patriot Act. You allege I am avoiding discussing it, I am not. I answered your questions, you weren't satisfied with the answers. I am just not interested in discussing it in this thread because it is largely off topic and a big enough side topic that it warrants a different thread so as not to undermine the intent of this thread. I would far prefer this thread I started remain focused on candidate discussions, not laws instituted by the previous administration, but it seems you're hellbent on dumping Bush Jr.'s dirty laundry into Obama's basket and it doesn't look like a moderator will jump in to halt your derailing of this thread despite the fact I already answered your core question and it is likewise answered in this thread previously.

Just for the moment we ignore the fact that the Bush administration and the GOP in Congress was working on instituting the Patriot Act "before" 9/11 even happened...

... or that we ignore the fact the first installment of the Patriot Act was largely unconstitutional, the Patriot Act of today substantially differs from the Patriot Act of 2001. While you correctly indicate the incidents of Congressional change to the Act, you did not consider the court rulings that stripped much from the Act. As well, instituting policies on "how" the Act is to be implemented and "how" the primary department is to function so that it is in accordance with the Constitution is indeed what Obama did.

So, let me point out where you're misinterpreting what I said:

"changes in the law <...> changes in "evidence in law statutes" <...> cannot change law <...> change regulation within the law <...> he couldn't get the law changed so he wrote executive orders <...> Despite your attempt to claim otherwise, this is not a change in the law either."

At no point did i claim, state, or otherwise infer he changed the law, that was your misinterpretation of what I stated (intentional?). So yes, rather than correcting your misinterpretation, I reacted to your offensive behavior. No faux apologies here.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your apology is not accepted, as saying, "i'm sorry you took it that way" is not truly an apology, but a backhanded dismissal. Fact is, you entered into this discussion with a derogatory, followed up with additional derogatories and escalated into direct insults. And then, you had the audacity to pull out the victim card...

Of course it's not truly an apology. I maintain that what I said was devoid of insult and even if it was as you claim to take it as one, it would have been completely negated by your actions had your statement been true. I only apologized because you mistook the statement, not because I did anything wrong.

Moving on, I could get all silly and point out I started this thread with the specific intent of encouraging community members to discuss U.S. Presidential candidates, so the parameters of this discussion were set by me, but I doubt that matters to you. Your focus here is to avoid discussing Presidential candidates and instead debate a side-issue, that of the Patriot Act. You allege I am avoiding discussing it, I am not. I answered your questions, you weren't satisfied with the answers. I am just not interested in discussing it in this thread because it is largely off topic and a big enough side topic that it warrants a different thread so as not to undermine the intent of this thread. I would far prefer this thread I started remain focused on candidate discussions, not laws instituted by the previous administration, but it seems you're hellbent on dumping Bush Jr.'s dirty laundry into Obama's basket and it doesn't look like a moderator will jump in to halt your derailing of this thread despite the fact I already answered your core question and it is likewise answered in this thread previously.

Listen, you made a claim about a presidential candidate (President Barack Husein Obama) that within his first year of office he "reversed many of the freedoms removed from Americans, by the Patriot and subsequent acts" which is false. The only reason the patriot act is up in the discussion is because you made a claim about a candidate that was untrue while trying to defend him against legitimate criticism. You then showed how misinformed you were about what the president had done by claiming that the Patriot acts were amended 3 other times before President Obama finally accepted it as it was in it's original when he took office.

To reiterate for those getting confuse with the rhetoric, you are involved because you made the claim. the claim was about the patriot act, what a presidential candidate did with it, and was not correct.

Just for the moment we ignore the fact that the Bush administration and the GOP in Congress was working on instituting the Patriot Act "before" 9/11 even happened...

... or that we ignore the fact the first installment of the Patriot Act was largely unconstitutional, the Patriot Act of today substantially differs from the Patriot Act of 2001. While you correctly indicate the incidents of Congressional change to the Act, you did not consider the court rulings that stripped much from the Act. As well, instituting policies on "how" the Act is to be implemented and "how" the primary department is to function so that it is in accordance with the Constitution is indeed what Obama did.

So, let me point out where you're misinterpreting what I said:

Is bush running for office again? Really, what is the purpose of pulling that up other then to claim "well, there could be worse then obama"? It's like saying Stalin wasn't that bad, look at Hitler.

Court rulings are not Obama Changing anything or reversing many of the freedoms removed from Americans. Setting department policies is not revsersing many of the freedoms removed from Americans, it is only restraining the federal government from using the offending bits when it is convienient. And to that end, it is not binding or punishable by any law. In fact, it appears to be more lip service then anything.. But this is not anything new, when you look at the fact that the US government under the direction of President Obama states that it has the authority to seek out and kill US citizens without ever charging them with a crime or refuses to disclose the number or innocent citizens the government spied on and violated their privacy because it would violate their privacy.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/80854
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/us-targeted-killings-eric-holder_n_1320515.html

So lets keep the discussion on current candidates.

At no point did i claim, state, or otherwise infer he changed the law, that was your misinterpretation of what I stated (intentional?). So yes, rather than correcting your misinterpretation, I reacted to your offensive behavior. No faux apologies here.

So he didn't reverse many of the freedoms lost by the patriot act and only pulled a smoke screen on us that you were trying to perpetuate by wording statements to give certain impressions without crossing into a factual claim?

 

[DeletedUser]

*coughs politely*

At the risk of butting in on a private argument, it seems to me that the personal attacks began with kk calling HS a "fanboy". I think "fan" would be ok, but "fanboy" has a derogatory and belittling connotation imho so, yes, I think that was the spark that started the flaming.

On the erosion of freedoms issue, I'm not so au fait with the US legislative system to be able to untangle the respective claims. I would just note that the Patriot Act seems to have eroded US citizens' freedoms somewhat, and that that was a Republican initiative. Whether Obama has done sufficient to dilute its powers, and whether that happened in his first year of office may remain moot points. However, I don't see mush in the argument that because a Democratic president has not been effectual enough in unmaking a previous Republican initiative, that this somehow makes him a less attractive candidate than a new Republican opponent.

How about this for further discussion: now that we know that Romney will be the Republican candidate, is he bringing anything to the table? What are his policies and should we endorse them?

 

[DeletedUser]

sigh..

Wikipedia says a Fanboy is a term used to describe a male who is highly devoted and biased in opinion towards a single subject or hobby within a given field.

That is all it has ever been to me and the circle of people I know until now when it is all the sudden the first blow in a series of personal attacks. " highly devoted and biased in opinion towards a single subject" can you go back and read the posts written and tell me that does not appear to be the case?

I would just note that the Patriot Act seems to have eroded US citizens' freedoms somewhat, and that that was a Republican initiative.

Actually, it was presented by the Justice department as one of those package deals to congress stating they needed these laws passed to deal with terrorism. When it was initially passed, it was an overwhelming bipartisan effort with only the democrats amending it (senator Russ Feingold introduced amendments in the senate all of which were passed). Russ Feingold had a change of mind and was the only senator to vote against it. in the 2006 extension, only 10 democrat senators voted against extending it. In the house, only 66 representatives out of 430 some voted against it orignally. For the 2006 extension, it was a little more lopsided with 138 voting against it.

It is a pandering issue now. The majority of so called freedoms the Patriot act removed are fabrications based around ignorance or abuses of government not even authorized by the patriot act. The democrats and Tea Party people cry about it while republicans dismiss the wild accusations and end up ignoring the legitimate complaints because of the false claims. They say they will remove it or fix it or make love to it to get elected and do nothing substantial once they get what they wanted.

Whether Obama has done sufficient to dilute its powers, and whether that happened in his first year of office may remain moot points.

The point only mattered to the extent that a claim was made that was incorrect. Whether or not Obama was able to get something accomplished on the matter is sort of off the ball here. It's not really about what he can do, but what people are giving him credit for doing.

However, I don't see mush in the argument that because a Democratic president has not been effectual enough in unmaking a previous Republican initiative, that this somehow makes him a less attractive candidate than a new Republican opponent.

I do not think you are going to see much in that department. For one, this is a game forum and most are not politically motivated here. For two, this is an international game and these politics only pertain to a small amount of people when considering the nationality and ability to do something. Finally, this election seems to be a choice between a Giant and a turd sandwich. You decide which is who.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154582/debate-2004

 

[DeletedUser]

sigh..

Wikipedia says a Fanboy is a term used to describe a male who is highly devoted and biased in opinion towards a single subject or hobby within a given field.

That is all it has ever been to me and the circle of people I know until now when it is all the sudden the first blow in a series of personal attacks. " highly devoted and biased in opinion towards a single subject" can you go back and read the posts written and tell me that does not appear to be the case?

Yes, but that's not all it says:

Fanboy is a term used to describe a male who is highly devoted and biased in opinion towards a single subject or hobby within a given field. Fanboy-ism is often prevalent in a field of products, brands or universe of characters where very few competitors (or enemies in fiction, such as comics) exist. ........

The term originated in comic book circles, to describe someone who was socially insecure and used comics as a shield from interaction, hence the disparaging connotations.[citation needed] Fanboys are often experts on minor details regarding their hobbies, such as continuity in fictional universes, and they take these details extremely seriously.......... The term itself is often used in a derogatory manner by less serious fans of the same material.........
The term is usually used by and applied to people in their teens or 20s; an age group which is typically found pursuing geeky hobbies obsessively

​

So I could understand HS taking it as a derogatory term. And no, I wouldn't say he was "highly devoted and biased in opinion". More like "partisan and opinionated" but not without reason.

But c'mon now folks, anyone got some good reasons for supporting Romney, other than that he's not Obama?

 

[DeletedUser]

As I said, that is all I and the people around until today have ever taken it as. That is why i only quoted the part I did and said as much.

I don't see hellstrom falling into the comic book portion of the article so I'm not sure why it would have offended him. However, I already apologized because he took offense to something I did not mean to be offensive. As for partisan and opinionated, isn't that the same as biased and looking at the posts, he has posted negative responses about every candidate apposing Obama and even insisted on trashing them whenever someone mentioned them in a good light while praising the glory of Obama even when someone claims they are fed up with the political environment. I would say that is devotion.

As for Romney, maybe not being Obama is enoughwhat is needed?

 

[DeletedUser16008]

But c'mon now folks, anyone got some good reasons for supporting Romney, other than that he's not Obama?

He uses Brylcreem ?