DeletedUser
Obama is the one who signed this Bill into effect in middle of the night 1/1/2012 last I checked... You still trust or believe in any politician regardless of political party???
Obama is the one who signed this Bill into effect in middle of the night 1/1/2012 last I checked... You still trust or believe in any politician regardless of political party???
DeletedUser
I was not at all happy with Obama signing the bill, and I find it one of his biggest tactical mistakes. He did so with great reservation, but also because he needed all the other provisions that were at the core of the bill. In order words, the indefinite detention was an add-on, from the Republicans in Congress. It was added to the bill by Republicans to get something they wanted out of something Obama needed. Obama needed the National Defense Authorization Agreement (NDAA) passed because it contained the provisions to pay for the ongoing military actions in Afghanistan and to pay for most of the military bases. The Republicans wanted to spoil the well, if you will, and thus included that detention provision. As I understand it, the Obama administration is presently attempting to have the act heard by the Supreme Court, to have that particular provision stripped from the act.
Obama's tactic, of utilizing the Supreme Court to clean bills he poses into laws/acts, is not exactly my view of how it should have been handled. I, personally, think he should have gone public about the whole thing and said the Republicans are unwilling to support the military without removing the rights of citizens, of due process. However, I also know the dogheadedness of the present batch of Republican Representatives. There is simply no way Obama could have obtained the authorization to afford maintaining the military without approving of the bill as is.
These are the games being played by Republicans, exploiting the circumstances to undermine the U.S., and discredit the President. Let's face it, Obama succeeding at anything hurts the GOP, a party that was left floundering after 2008. It is the dogma posed by the GOP, in attempting to keep their party viable, that is undermining the United States and attacking the U.S. Constitution at every turn. They are, in no uncertain terms, putting their Party before the People.
So, what I'm saying here is, do not judge a book by its cover. Look deeper into the issues and you see the facts, the Machiavellian actions of an unscrupulous political party that will do "anything" to remain viable. In this, and other instances, such as the extension of the tax cut for the wealthy, Obama has compromised. Not out of diplomacy, not because he agreed to all aspects of these bills, but because of necessity, of the need to ensure the economy doesn't collapse, the employment rate not skyrocket, and the military not fail.
It is the collapse of the U.S. economy, the rise of employment, and/or the failure of military actions that helps the Republican party to claim Obama is incompetent and unable to function as the President. It is a win/win situation for the Republican party when they pose such bills, knowing Obama cannot say no to a need, yet must swallow a very bitter pill at each signing.
Once again are you guys still wanting a Republican in the White House, someone who will pose laws/acts into effect because it's what the GOP wants instead of what's good for the country? Obama is forced to do so sparingly, and under great reservation, and with a dependency for the Supreme Court to rule such additive provisions as unconstitutional. But a Republican President? He'll sign it, and many more, willingly and without reservation, then celebrate his pwning of the People with his fellow party affiliates and corporate cohorts.
Let's also make it clear, the NDAA did not change anything in regards to indefinite detention. This was already previously posed in Bush' so-called Patriot acts. What it did was impose an Obama administration "okay" to what's been going on already since the first Bush term. Just as the telecom and tax cut issues, these are things installed during the Bush administration, which the Obama administration is having a hard time getting rid of, because Republicans in Congress are ensuring that when Obama "needs" something, the Republicans slip in some clause that reaffirms the continuation of policies posed during Bush's administration. It's dirty politics at its dirtiest. The fix is not easy. Indeed, I frankly don't know what is the fix. However, I do know for sure that a Republican President won't fix it because they don't see it as broken.
Obama's tactic, of utilizing the Supreme Court to clean bills he poses into laws/acts, is not exactly my view of how it should have been handled. I, personally, think he should have gone public about the whole thing and said the Republicans are unwilling to support the military without removing the rights of citizens, of due process. However, I also know the dogheadedness of the present batch of Republican Representatives. There is simply no way Obama could have obtained the authorization to afford maintaining the military without approving of the bill as is.
These are the games being played by Republicans, exploiting the circumstances to undermine the U.S., and discredit the President. Let's face it, Obama succeeding at anything hurts the GOP, a party that was left floundering after 2008. It is the dogma posed by the GOP, in attempting to keep their party viable, that is undermining the United States and attacking the U.S. Constitution at every turn. They are, in no uncertain terms, putting their Party before the People.
So, what I'm saying here is, do not judge a book by its cover. Look deeper into the issues and you see the facts, the Machiavellian actions of an unscrupulous political party that will do "anything" to remain viable. In this, and other instances, such as the extension of the tax cut for the wealthy, Obama has compromised. Not out of diplomacy, not because he agreed to all aspects of these bills, but because of necessity, of the need to ensure the economy doesn't collapse, the employment rate not skyrocket, and the military not fail.
It is the collapse of the U.S. economy, the rise of employment, and/or the failure of military actions that helps the Republican party to claim Obama is incompetent and unable to function as the President. It is a win/win situation for the Republican party when they pose such bills, knowing Obama cannot say no to a need, yet must swallow a very bitter pill at each signing.
Once again are you guys still wanting a Republican in the White House, someone who will pose laws/acts into effect because it's what the GOP wants instead of what's good for the country? Obama is forced to do so sparingly, and under great reservation, and with a dependency for the Supreme Court to rule such additive provisions as unconstitutional. But a Republican President? He'll sign it, and many more, willingly and without reservation, then celebrate his pwning of the People with his fellow party affiliates and corporate cohorts.
Let's also make it clear, the NDAA did not change anything in regards to indefinite detention. This was already previously posed in Bush' so-called Patriot acts. What it did was impose an Obama administration "okay" to what's been going on already since the first Bush term. Just as the telecom and tax cut issues, these are things installed during the Bush administration, which the Obama administration is having a hard time getting rid of, because Republicans in Congress are ensuring that when Obama "needs" something, the Republicans slip in some clause that reaffirms the continuation of policies posed during Bush's administration. It's dirty politics at its dirtiest. The fix is not easy. Indeed, I frankly don't know what is the fix. However, I do know for sure that a Republican President won't fix it because they don't see it as broken.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I find this very scary, and not in the least suprising.
I mean, look at the way the US authorities handled the Wall Street protesters, arresting and beating peaceful protesters, worst of all, one protester was arrested on the grounds that he didn't get out of his sleeping bag quickly enough!
and whilst all this is going on, US politicians are preaching democracy and human rights to the Middle East!
American politicians are seriously screwed up, and I can only give this advice to you Americans, your government isn't going to change anything, so you'll have to.
KEEP PROTESTING!
I mean, look at the way the US authorities handled the Wall Street protesters, arresting and beating peaceful protesters, worst of all, one protester was arrested on the grounds that he didn't get out of his sleeping bag quickly enough!
and whilst all this is going on, US politicians are preaching democracy and human rights to the Middle East!
American politicians are seriously screwed up, and I can only give this advice to you Americans, your government isn't going to change anything, so you'll have to.
KEEP PROTESTING!
DeletedUser
The problem is when they call the occupy movement terrorism and indefinitely confine them in order to silence them...
And as for the democrats being the great hope some think they are, well they are stripping the 2nd amendment at the same time the rest of the rights are being stripped by the conservatives, and the right to bear and keep arms is the only right that will guarantee the rest of the rights.
In reality every day the government is taking more and more power away from the people who they pretend to serve and no "party" or politician is innocent in that.
DeletedUser
Okay, now you're just making things up. No Occupy Movement person has been labeled a terrorist or incarcerated without due process.
Again, making things up. Review all the bills/laws/acts that have gone through Congress, which have anything to do with stripping any amendment rights, and you'll see those particular additions were added by Republicans. Read my earlier post.
DeletedUser
I guess you are not familiar with a future tense statement...
No, they just work at the state level (see California).
DeletedUser
I see you're referring to the ban on openly carrying guns in California. It does not restrict the right to own and bear arms, only so much as bearing them in public. If you wish to bear arms, you may obtain a permit to wear a concealed weapon. If you are legally allowed to own a gun, you will not be denied a permit to wear a concealed weapon.
The reasons for this are mainly to deter incidents of false calls to the police, whereby thousands of 911 calls were made in instances of someone openly carrying a gun. Let's face it, guns scare people, and just about the only reason to carry one openly is to intimidate, as your ability to unclick, draw, remove the safety, and fire a gun is simply not faster than getting cold-cocked or shot on the spot by a criminal wanting to increase his gun collection.
The ban does not impact the 2nd amendment. If you want to argue what does impact the 2nd amendment, think of all the people who are not allowed to own a gun, due to having been, at one time or another, diagnosed with a mental illness or having committed certain crimes. They are still citizens of the U.S., and yet those restrictions were introduced by Republicans (including Reagan when he was California Governor, and later nationally when he was U.S. President). By Republican standards, it seems the 2nd amendment only applies to "some" Americans.
You sure you want to continue the walk into this quagmire of a debate? It is, after all, a distraction from the main topic, indefinite detention, and one in which you won't fare well.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I see you're referring to the ban on openly carrying guns in California. It does not restrict the right to own and bear arms, only so much as bearing them in public. If you wish to bear arms, you may obtain a permit to wear a concealed weapon. If you are legally allowed to own a gun, you will not be denied a permit to wear a concealed weapon.
The reasons for this are mainly to deter incidents of false calls to the police, whereby thousands of 911 calls were made in instances of someone openly carrying a gun. Let's face it, guns scare people, and just about the only reason to carry one openly is to intimidate, as your ability to unclick, draw, remove the safety, and fire a gun is simply not faster than getting cold-cocked or shot on the spot by a criminal wanting to increase his gun collection.
The ban does not impact the 2nd amendment. If you want to argue what does impact the 2nd amendment, think of all the people who are not allowed to own a gun, due to having been, at one time or another, diagnosed with a mental illness or having committed certain crimes. They are still citizens of the U.S., and yet those restrictions were introduced by Republicans (including Reagan when he was California Governor, and later nationally when he was U.S. President). By Republican standards, it seems the 2nd amendment only applies to "some" Americans.
You sure you want to continue the walk into this quagmire of a debate? It is, after all, a distraction from the main topic, indefinite detention, and one in which you won't fare well.
Well since I'm the OP I'll take the risk offending me and going a bit off topic on this one
CA does not permit just anyone who wants to get a concealed weapon's permit, you have to have a "Good Cause." This is just a code for unless you are a business owner or Law enforcement or just have connections. The right to bear arms is being infringed contrary to the 2nd amendment. The ability to get a permit does not constitute RIGHT. As far as the conservatives go, I don't trust them either so that's really not relevant at all...