More hypocrisy from Obama

Robert

Robert

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
6,529
You beat me to the punch. It's OK though Robert, Obama is black and probably 50% of those spied on were Republicans. faethor will post a picture of a tiny novelty fiddle and cc will have some snarky remarks.
 
redrumloa said:
You beat me to the punch. It's OK though Robert, Obama is black and probably 50% of those spied on were Republicans. faethor will post a picture of a tiny novelty fiddle and cc will have some snarky remarks.
Click to expand...
95% of those being monitored were Tea Party members
the other 5% where just mistakenly thought to be Tea Party members
 
metalman said:
95% of those being monitored were Tea Party members
the other 5% where just mistakenly thought to be Tea Party members
Click to expand...

I was referencing Obama seizing pretty much *ALL* of Verizon's records. Anyone who uses Verizon, such as me, has had their Constitutional rights violated.
 
@Robert,

Yup we know Obama is this "liberal" who continues GWBush and Nixon policies. Cuz we know those guys were liberal too. :lol: In reality Obama is 1/2 Black and from Hawaii, that doesn't make him a liberal.
 
Rand Paul is a do nothing blow hard. Take the Patriot Act, he slowed it down but fronted no legislation to change or recind it. Do nothing! Take the Drone 'problem'. He wasted time and fronted no legislation. Paul took the Obama Attorney General's word as sufficient. Though there was no change in anything from what Obama and the AG oath of office. It's a joke is the AG's oath of office not sufficient instead Paul needs to speak to him directly? What he displayed here is a false sense of entitlement. Do nothing! Now what we have is Paul who is going to fix the 4th Amendment. Really? The Gov isn't following their own rule and somehow they'll follow if Paul stresses it? (What he could lead is the removal of the Patriot Act.) Paul again will do nothing but will be successful at being a publicity whore. What Paul is really good at is getting the cameras to point at himself. He's an undeclared Presidential candidate. What he's not really good at is accomplishing anything within Congress.
 
redrumloa said:
I was referencing Obama seizing pretty much *ALL* of Verizon's records. Anyone who uses Verizon, such as me, has had their Constitutional rights violated.
Click to expand...
SHAREEVERYTHING.jpg
 
@faethor
Huh? You haven't been paying attention.
 
"If you like your current privacy, you can keep it" == Things Obama says but doesn't really mean

"Privacy is effectively a 20th century concept like the steam engine."

Analogy FAIL!

a Steam engine is an external combustion engine, the modern version is the steam turbine, which is currently used for 90% of all electrical power generation

So, why all the data collecting to protect us from terrorism, if there is no terrorist threat??
White House: ‘War on terrorism’ is over!

guess the "war on the tea party" is still in progress ...

Look squirrel! and a Shiny object! >>> over there by the >>> "Universal Healthcare!"
 
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

"The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life," Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin. "That's going to be very, very powerful," Waters said. "That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it's never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They're going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can't get around it. And he's [President Obama] been very smart. It's very powerful what he's leaving in place."
Click to expand...
 
faethor said:
Rand Paul is a do nothing blow hard. Take the Patriot Act, he slowed it down but fronted no legislation to change or recind it.
Click to expand...
Now, I'm confused by the non-default typeface - perhaps you cut and pasted this from somewhere but ...

That's just a little bit malicious, uninformed and inaccurate. Yes, he did slow down the passage of the renewal of the PATRIOT act (did anyone else?) and what did he do to slow it down? Well, he was trying to get amendments put on the legislation that he pretty much knew was going to pass no matter how he voted. He put forward amendments (which IS putting forward legislation to change the act).

“Some will say: Oh, you are going to keep your colleagues here until 1 in the morning. Well, I think when they are here tonight at 1 in the morning, maybe they will think a little bit about why they are here and why we had no debate and why we had the power to have the debate at any point in time. I have agreed and said we can have a vote on the PATRIOT Act in an hour or 2 hours. We could have had a vote on the PATRIOT Act yesterday. But I want debate, and I want amendments. I think that is the very least the American people demand and this body demands, that there be open and deliberate debate about the PATRIOT Act ."

Just plain old stating that he was doing nothing simply shows that you don't care to even find out if he was doing nothing before you say it. In fact if you had read the Rand Paul article that Robert posted you would see mentioned in it some legislation that Paul has put forward.

Do nothing! Take the Drone 'problem'. He wasted time and fronted no legislation. Paul took the Obama Attorney General's word as sufficient. Though there was no change in anything from what Obama and the AG oath of office. It's a joke is the AG's oath of office not sufficient instead Paul needs to speak to him directly? What he displayed here is a false sense of entitlement. Do nothing! Now what we have is Paul who is going to fix the 4th Amendment. Really? The Gov isn't following their own rule and somehow they'll follow if Paul stresses it?
Click to expand...

You do something. You ever tried to go against a legislative body when the general public has no idea what the issues are when you know that the rest of the votes are already fixed against you. You can't get anything passed in that climate without first getting some attention on the matter from the people. No (normal) politician is going to stick neck out by voting against something he's been told to vote for that neither he nor his constituents really know or care about. He does introduce legislation but there is no real chance of passing any of it without demand for it from constituents. His "grandstanding" may have gained nothing but getting the issue onto TV but that is still a big deal. He may have spent hours filibustering (and you try it sometime if you think that's not hard work) to get nothing from the AG weasel words that pretty much confirm exactly how bad things really are but that's not the same as nothing at all. He didn't win anything but he did expose the situation. That's the first step. You think you have a better way, I'd love to see you be doing it - but just criticizing one of the very few people in the legislative assembly who IS trying to make an issue of it is worse than doing nothing. Tearing down people who try to raise points against the PATRIOT act is just working FOR the PATRIOT act.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
That's just a little bit malicious, uninformed and inaccurate.
Click to expand...

You got that right. It is really bizarre to see people's reaction to Ron/Rand Paul on both sides. The amount of misinformation spread is something else. Americans are so trained to be sheep it is frightening. The only ones who actually stand up for the Constitution get attacked by the blank eyed masses.
 
i dunno about being a sheep... ron lost me with the newsletters, junior paul lost me with his comments on the civil rights act... the equivocating was so obvious it was hard to watch...
 
In 2008, the presidential candidate said the following about whistleblowing: "Acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled, as they have been during the Bush administration." As president, his administration has attacked more national security whistleblowers as criminals under the Espionage Act than all previous governments combined.
Click to expand...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/surveillance-us-uk-national-insecurity
 
redrumloa said:
You got that right. It is really bizarre to see people's reaction to Ron/Rand Paul on both sides. The amount of misinformation spread is something else. Americans are so trained to be sheep it is frightening. The only ones who actually stand up for the Constitution get attacked by the blank eyed masses.
Click to expand...
What I think you're missing is there are a couple of issues. First, what the Pauls believe/claim to be the Constitution may not be what the Constitution says. Nothing makes them infallible. Second, how the Pauls approach this is a factor at play.

Let's go back to drones, because I see that as an easy example: The way the Constitution is constructed the Gov may not use weapons on citizens, unless the citizen is a combatant. One good historical illustration of how this works and how we accept this is from Lincoln, who turned the US Military against US Citizens. The US President, also, swears that he must up hold the Constitution. Rand locked up the Gov because he claimed he wanted drones to never be used on Citizens. As illustrated historically this is not how the US Constitution is accepted on this issue. In the end Rand accepted the repeat that the US Military can only be used on Citizens that are under combat within the US. --> What we see here is a couple of things. Rand's original position, which he claimed was Constitution, was not. In the end he accepted something different, and what was in place for well over a hundred years. (Also - A few weeks later he said it'd be OK to kill someone with a drone, without trial, if they were leaving a liquor store with a gun, and the police thought that guy as the robber. (Talk about inconsistent!) ) Check my first point - just because Paul says something is Constitutional doesn't make him right. He took a couple sides to using drones and it appears neither was what the Constitution says. To check my second point Rand's approach is often not well reasoned. Rand held us all hostage over his befuddlement. The press and the president gave far more time then reasonable. Then he declared 'victory'. Rand's nattering nimrod of negativism resulted in nothing but posturing and puffery politicking. He supposedly knows how the Gov works and did nothing there demonstrating how to 'fix' the problems he sees.

As you say there are sheep. There are sheep all over. Certainly there are sheep accepting whatever the President tells them. But, just as well there are sheep accepting whatever Rand tells them. These two are simply flocks of a different cloth. But, all sheep none-the-less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top