This Whole War Powers Thing
volumen
2,532 Posts
I think Obama has actually moved father right than a lot of right wingers and it's scaring them which I find amusing.
9/11 happens, congress looks the other way when Bush goes to war illegally with false evidence and passes every patriot act/trample peoples rights law that Bush and the Military/FBI/CIA want. Meanwhile Bush and the DOD amass a pile of prisoners and torture them, many of which have yet to even have a trial after years of incarceration.
Now they are trying to say it's Obama going to far? He's basically just continuing what was started before him. No ones hands are clean here. It's wrong on both sides, but the reality is that conservatives are the ones that pushed for a lot of this stuff in the first place. The patriot act was being used to spy on people left and right in the US who were not even linked to terrorists. It seems republicans are concerned that the DOJ said every where could be a war zone so Obama can send troops anywhere with out congress. But, Bush started a war with out congressional approval. He abducted people and transported them through different countries while torturing them for information. He also sent troops to more than one country. What is Obama doing that's any different than the 8 years before him? The laws his using were written before he was even president.
I wish all the conservatives so concerned about Benghazi truth now would have spoke up when Bush was falsifying evidence to go to war.
9/11 happens, congress looks the other way when Bush goes to war illegally with false evidence and passes every patriot act/trample peoples rights law that Bush and the Military/FBI/CIA want. Meanwhile Bush and the DOD amass a pile of prisoners and torture them, many of which have yet to even have a trial after years of incarceration.
Now they are trying to say it's Obama going to far? He's basically just continuing what was started before him. No ones hands are clean here. It's wrong on both sides, but the reality is that conservatives are the ones that pushed for a lot of this stuff in the first place. The patriot act was being used to spy on people left and right in the US who were not even linked to terrorists. It seems republicans are concerned that the DOJ said every where could be a war zone so Obama can send troops anywhere with out congress. But, Bush started a war with out congressional approval. He abducted people and transported them through different countries while torturing them for information. He also sent troops to more than one country. What is Obama doing that's any different than the 8 years before him? The laws his using were written before he was even president.
I wish all the conservatives so concerned about Benghazi truth now would have spoke up when Bush was falsifying evidence to go to war.
Comments
I guess the moral is "be careful what you wish for".
And as we all know, everything seems more acceptable if your team is doing it. It's harder than it looks to rise above that; my solution so far is to hate everybody.
No matter which 'side' you approach the issue from, this nonsense has been going on long enough that it seems to have clouded our collective societal sense of what's right and what's wrong. That's where the real danger happens.
100%
This type of shit only clouds your judgment if you approach it from a "side".
^^^Gayest post ever. Fucking evolve out of 2-party politics already. Sheesh.
The absolute weakest argument anyone can make to defend the current administration begins with the words..."But, Bush....."
For years I have been posting here about "Horizontal Politics" and how both parties play us all by having us point fingers at the "other side",
If you truly want this country to be better, work towards having YOUR "side" being honest and having integrity, then even if the other side doesn't we'll be 50% better off than we were before.
And this is aimed at anyone who declares a "side", on both the left and the right.....no problem has ever been solved by pointing out there is a worse problem somewhere else.
Few people make that argument to defend the current administration.
However, the "But, Bush" argument is made on the regular to point out the fact that those loudly and forcefully complaining about what Obama does, was either overtly or tacitly approved when it occurred under the Bush administration. And that argument should be made.
Those who can't see the difference in these two separate points are being intellectually lazy and dishonest, IMO.
Hypocrisy shouldn't get a pass.
This would be a little more convincing if some proof of this 'tacit approval' accompanied the argument. In my case, you won't find any because it never happened.
Assuming that everybody who criticizes Obama gave a rubber stamp to everything W did is a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.
Please point to where I said "everybody who criticizes Obama gave a rubber stamp to everything W did"
Thanks in advance.
In the post I responded to. If that's not what it means you might want to rewrite it so that it makes sense.
You know, I read my post, and then I reread it again.
And nowhere do I say "everybody who criticizes Obama gave a rubber stamp to everything W did"
So, maybe you should get your glasses checked. Lasik surgery?
I didn't say "everybody", and I didn't imply "everybody".
You just pulled that one out of thin air.
I said "those". I then qualified "those" and was specific about whom I was referring to. No dictionary gives a definition for "those" as "everybody", nor does any thesaurus list "everybody" as a synonym for "those".
Intellectual dishonesty and poor reading comprehension at it's finest. Good job, Horse.
I'm completely opposed to the whole 2 party, 1% ultra rich, military industrial complex that run this country and pretty much the world. Is that clear enough?
It seems weird that the republicans are going to say the president has too much power when they are the ones that rubber stamped all this power to the presidential position. It has more to do with them being anti-obama than them actually caring about freedom and personal liberty. It's been 12 years of out of control war since 9/11 and now they say something!
Hell then just bent over for the NRA despite the public's wish to have a little gun control. The vote actually passed and they abandoned the bill because lobbyist and money have more power than people and votes. Clearly they don't care what we want and are on their own self serving, pocket lining, religious zealot agenda. I just think they are making a show now in the hopes that they can win the next election with "ohhhh democrats are scarey and want to trample your rights". When in reality all of congress tramples our rights and puts more value on corporations than citizens.
This is my point. Bush was wrong and Obama is wrong, but if you questioned Bush you were unpatriotic and hated the troops! If you question Obama it's because you know he's secretly implementing Sharia law!
Likewise who accept whatever Obama, and his administration does, should not complain when the Rs get in power and do the same thing.
Case in point could be the IRS singling out organizations because of a perceived political affiliation.
Hate it now, or shut up when your group is singled out under a Republican administration.
It would be great if we had a multiparty parliamentarian system.
We do not.
We have a two party system, and if you want to create change you have to work with in that system.
Your first sentence is spot on.
Your second sentence ignores what the law says. The IRS should be investigating political organizations that are trying to get 501c4 status. You don't like it? Change the law.
What I'm saying is that they are all hypocrites and republicans and democrats are actually both on the same side. The side of the ultra wealthy corporations, banks and arms manufactures/dealers. The 2 party dynamic is just a game of divided and conqueror.
It was actually a good example of how they both play the same game, which is part of what I'm getting at.
Yea, but it was an IRS-related post. Right example, wrong thread!