- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 2,926
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I think some might need a little reminder of the the crap Bush and Cheney (AKA the Penguin) pulled when they were in office-
After the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush/Cheney team saw an opening to free the presidency from checks and balances. They exploited the fear and insecurity that were pervasive at the time to claim emergency powers, creating offshore detention centers where prisoners were held without charge and eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant.
Mr. Bush’s signing statements not only amounted to a significant usurpation of power, but they came at a time when Congress was giving him everything he wanted. Congress passed the deeply flawed Patriot Act and authorized the invasion of Iraq. It even gave its retroactive approval to warrantless wiretapping. Mr. Bush also achieved many of his domestic policy goals, including tax breaks that mostly benefited the richest Americans.
The contrast with the Obama administration is stark.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/executive-overreach/?_r=0
I think some might need a little reminder of the the crap Bush and Cheney (AKA the Penguin) pulled when they were in office-
After the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush/Cheney team saw an opening to free the presidency from checks and balances. They exploited the fear and insecurity that were pervasive at the time to claim emergency powers, creating offshore detention centers where prisoners were held without charge and eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant.
Mr. Bush’s signing statements not only amounted to a significant usurpation of power, but they came at a time when Congress was giving him everything he wanted. Congress passed the deeply flawed Patriot Act and authorized the invasion of Iraq. It even gave its retroactive approval to warrantless wiretapping. Mr. Bush also achieved many of his domestic policy goals, including tax breaks that mostly benefited the richest Americans.
The contrast with the Obama administration is stark.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/executive-overreach/?_r=0
They're like baby trolls, trying to find the right button to push so they can scream what they always scream about blah-blah melting liberals, yada-yada, Messiah whatever - it gets old.
And oh so predictable.
And oh so predictable.
FORTUNATELY, this board has people who are actively practicing critical thought, and they make up for the 'King Obama' brigade.
What exactly do you think this op-ed says? I mean, all op-eds are opinion, but this one, even more than most. The "stark difference" he cites is basically "Republicans suck, so of course Obama's doing what he's doing. Bush was dealing with -- get this -- DEMOCRATS. He had no excuse."
Obama has continued every single onerous thing he cites Bush as doing, and in many cases, expanded on them. Obama's OK, according to this guy, because duh, it's OBAMA.
So, what's your line? Bush did it, so it makes everything OK? How about this? They were both wrong. But wasn't Obama supposed to put an end to all of that?
The point is that, for many, I think their level of disgust is based on their feelings about the man more than his overreach while in office. I am not endorsing the act, and never said I did. Why do conservative "thinkers" have such a hard time picking up on nuance?
The point is that, for many, I think their level of disgust is based on their feelings about the man more than his overreach while in office.
FORTUNATELY, this board has people who are actively practicing critical thought, and they make up for the 'King Obama' brigade.
there's more than a bit of irony here for the OP and people on both sides of the isle. Let's face it, most of you couldn't careless about actual policy, it's impact, or what it entails in the long term.
you just want to neaner people from the "other" side
yanno how when you open a thread and the majority of the posters have already earned a spot on your mental ignore list
and you only reading what two of the posters typed and then close the thread consigning it to the dustbin?
I think some might need a little reminder of the the crap Bush and Cheney (AKA the Penguin) pulled when they were in office-
After the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush/Cheney team saw an opening to free the presidency from checks and balances. They exploited the fear and insecurity that were pervasive at the time to claim emergency powers, creating offshore detention centers where prisoners were held without charge and eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant.
Mr. Bush’s signing statements not only amounted to a significant usurpation of power, but they came at a time when Congress was giving him everything he wanted. Congress passed the deeply flawed Patriot Act and authorized the invasion of Iraq. It even gave its retroactive approval to warrantless wiretapping. Mr. Bush also achieved many of his domestic policy goals, including tax breaks that mostly benefited the richest Americans.
The contrast with the Obama administration is stark.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/executive-overreach/?_r=0
Boston was a pretty major attack on US soil, and an embassies is technically US soil.
The part that gets me is the hypocrisy of the left and right. If it was Bush, the right says it was okay. If it was Obama, the left says it was okay. The left says: "But Bush did it, or worse!!" The right says: "Obama is ignoring the Constitution!!"
Either you're for limiting freedom's or your not. Either you're for reducing our exposure and increasing national security or your not. Neither of those statements are correct. There's a balance.
The truth is, Bush eroded our personal freedom's and Obama ran with it and expanded on it because he has the support of the majority of the media (Aren't they the ones that are supposed to warn us when this happens?) and is the messiah to many so he can do no wrong.
Both positions are sickening. Obama is neither the messiah or the devil. Bush was neither a savior of freedom nor the abolisher of our privacy rights.
Both are doing/did what they feel/felt was required to protect us from harm. Are/were they correct? Who knows. Because the programs are behind the curtain of "National Security" we may never know. The only facts that we have are that 1) there hasn't been a major coordinated attack on US soil since 9/11, and 2) although we hear about the "oh so bad" intrusions on our privacy, there hasn't been one case of a person being prosecuted for something that Big Brother found when looking at their emails or texts.
All this is, is something for people to give themselves their 15 minutes of fame with their ideologically similar group (insert name of blogger here), or for each political party to make points with the extreme element in their own party.
Like I said before. This is not about finger pointing.
The point is to remind everyone that it happens on both sides;
if you recall the article does not shy away from the fact that Obama is doing it also.
But really, it is not okay for anyone regardless of their party.
Like I said before. This is not about finger pointing. The point is to remind everyone that it happens on both sides; if you recall the article does not shy away from the fact that Obama is doing it also. The justification that follows I'm sure will make the right froth at the mouth while some on the left will agree with it. If the roles were reversed I am certain righties would find some justification for what Bush and Cheney did that made it OK for them but not Ok for us. But really, it is not okay for anyone regardless of their party.
I share your thoughts about extremism and partisan bigotry believe it or not and this post is really targeting that issue. Perhaps I gave the readers too much credit for being able to figure that out.
Coordinated attack, Boston was not. It was a couple guys that fed on the propaganda. I was referring to within the borders of the US (you are correct that an Embassy or Consulate is US soil). And if we're not careful, there will be Extremist Leftists and/or Extremist Rightists that will be the next perpetrators. This continual hatred of "the other side" will lead to harm and death on a large scale. What's happening in Cairo right now is not impossible to happen here. WE ARE NO IMMUNE. And when it starts, it will get out of hand fast. So fast that by the time we realize it, it will be too late to stop it (Remember the rights in Compton or other similar events / source of riot is irrelevant more than the fact that it can happen). When the balloon goes up, and its based on political hatred, people die.
Yes, it is, by your very next sentence:
If it wasn't about "finger pointing," you wouldn't have to "remind" anyone of such a thing.
It gives Obama a pass, and you ended your own quotation from it with "The contrast with the Obama administration is stark." You, yourself, wanted to leave it with that impression.
So do tell the nature of your problems with what Obama did. What was the problem with it, and why was it wrong? See if you can answer it without a tu quoque deflection.
Oh, I couldn't agree with you more on the left/right us/them struggle that's distracting from the reality that both parties are contributing to the demise of our republic. IMO Jimmy Carter is absolutely correct. For Boston, the brothers didn't coordinate anything?
I think that at some times, a person's post or thread is judged based on the perceived purpose or meaning rather than the actual purpose or meaning. For instance, your title section to the left of your posts sates that you "Lean - Progressive" which to some paints everything you write. That is nothing but predetermination by association with the term Progressive. You and I don't agree on everything (we lean in opposite directions on certain issues and the same direction on others), but we agree on the most important parts and that allows us to debate each other with respect and an open mind.
IMHO, you are not the typical Progressive as defined by the extreme right. I hope that's not an insult to you.
And at what point has she done something others have not; redefined or clarified her position.
If we aren't capable of allowing people to evolve or to let them further describe their position, then we haven't debated but attacked.
Maybe she didn't mean it the way it read or the way you read it? Is that a possibility worthy of consideration?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?