Why I Would Choose President Obama If I Was American

Recycling GOP & DNC traitors again, and again.. then expecting "change", is the definition of insanity.

Paul is in the so called "race" to articulate a certain rage.. and the end of the day he's still a card carrying member of the 2 headed modern nazi establishment.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by MysteriousHusky
Q: Has Republican opposition to President Obama and his reforms helped Americans recover or hindered their recovery with all the bickering from both parties leading to a standstill in Congress?

It's amusing to me that the Republican obstructionism, that has been the war cry of the GOP since the VERY first day Obama was in office, is now being blamed on Obama...

The GOP wanted Obama to fail and did everything in their power to make sure that happened, the population be damned... And now, they are saying that Obama's failures are because he didn't do the right thing, when in truth, the GOP in Congress blocked him from doing the right thing at every opportunity, because it was their goal to do so... THEIR goal. The GOP's goal.

The population be damned... And now they want to go back to the GOP strategy that got us in the mess in the first place...

It's all very amusing.

Actually Obama's biggest accomplishment was obtained with help from the GOP. The killing of Osama bin Laden was only achieved by the GOP insisting that Club Gitmo stay open. The intelligence obtained through enhanced interrogations there led us straight to him. If Obama had his way, the worlds #1 most wanted terrorist would still be on the run. This led directly to Obama giving the no-brainer order to take him out.

reply to post by Carseller4


Very good point! Good memory on that one! However I believe some Democrats were also against closing Gitmo as it was/is the most advanced prison facility available and it made no sense to relocate/downgrade. P.S. I am pretty sure the inmates would not have been released as the misconception goes but merely relocated to I believe an Illinois facility.

P.S. Here is the President's most recent Weekly Address. Note how many times he says "we".

Originally posted by MysteriousHusky
reply to post by Carseller4

 

Very good point! Good memory on that one! However I believe some Democrats were also against closing Gitmo as it was/is the most advanced prison facility available and it made no sense to relocate/downgrade. P.S. I am pretty sure the inmates would not have been released as the misconception goes but merely relocated to I believe an Illinois facility.

Look, GITMO was not closed for one reason and one reason only. It was because the closing of GITMO would have led, not only to the transfer of the prisoners onto American soil, but also to access to the American justice system or "Due Process." During this process, the truth about what took place at GITMO under the enhanced interrogation policies of the Bush administration would have been fully exposed for the world to see, leading to the first prosecution of an American President for violations of the Geneva Conventions as well as for crimes against humanity. What sitting POTUS would want this to be part of his legacy?

reply to post by Flatfish


That's also a good point, may have been the largest reason if not the only reason as you said. However I am quite confident that the cost involved of closing Gitmo and relocation would have also looked bad especially since President Obama was entering Office during a recession.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by MysteriousHusky
Q: Has Republican opposition to President Obama and his reforms helped Americans recover or hindered their recovery with all the bickering from both parties leading to a standstill in Congress?

It's amusing to me that the Republican obstructionism, that has been the war cry of the GOP since the VERY first day Obama was in office, is now being blamed on Obama...

The GOP wanted Obama to fail and did everything in their power to make sure that happened, the population be damned... And now, they are saying that Obama's failures are because he didn't do the right thing, when in truth, the GOP in Congress blocked him from doing the right thing at every opportunity, because it was their goal to do so... THEIR goal. The GOP's goal.

The population be damned... And now they want to go back to the GOP strategy that got us in the mess in the first place...

It's all very amusing.

hi, BE....haven't seen you here in a while...it is refreshing to see your comment. i thought all the sane people left along time ago. i think people all over this nation know how the GOP would gut what's left of their reduced standard of livng once they got into office. just look at what the republican governors have foisted upon working people in their own states. to this day, i don't know why regular people would vote AGAINST their own interests.

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by MysteriousHusky
Q: Has Republican opposition to President Obama and his reforms helped Americans recover or hindered their recovery with all the bickering from both parties leading to a standstill in Congress?

It's amusing to me that the Republican obstructionism, that has been the war cry of the GOP since the VERY first day Obama was in office, is now being blamed on Obama...

The GOP wanted Obama to fail and did everything in their power to make sure that happened, the population be damned... And now, they are saying that Obama's failures are because he didn't do the right thing, when in truth, the GOP in Congress blocked him from doing the right thing at every opportunity, because it was their goal to do so... THEIR goal. The GOP's goal.

The population be damned... And now they want to go back to the GOP strategy that got us in the mess in the first place...

It's all very amusing.

Actually Obama's biggest accomplishment was obtained with help from the GOP. The killing of Osama bin Laden was only achieved by the GOP insisting that Club Gitmo stay open. The intelligence obtained through enhanced interrogations there led us straight to him. If Obama had his way, the worlds #1 most wanted terrorist would still be on the run. This led directly to Obama giving the no-brainer order to take him out.

hahahaha!!...are you kidding? bush had 7 YEARS to get bin ladan, it was his direct connections to the bin ladan family that he cared about, more than the americans that were killed by Osama bin ladan.

Originally posted by MysteriousHusky
reply to post by Flatfish

 

That's also a good point, may have been the largest reason if not the only reason as you said. However I am quite confident that the cost involved of closing Gitmo and relocation would have also looked bad especially since President Obama was entering Office during a recession.

While I realize that the transfer of prisoners would have had it's cost, so does keeping GITMO open. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, there was a brand new prison up there in Illinois somewhere that was empty and begging for the business as well as the jobs for the community, wasn't there?

I have thought about this particular issue long and hard and I believe that if it were something as simple as the costs related to the transfer of prisoners in bad economic times, President Obama would have spoken about it by now.

I remain convinced that the Presidents' failure to follow through on his promise to close GITMO has far deeper implications than those of cost and his reluctance to speak about it is IMO, the most incriminating factor of all. I wouldn't doubt for one minute that he has been told by TPTB that he would not live to close GITMO for those very reasons. Taking these possibilities into consideration, I can't say that I would do any different if I were in his shoes. Would you?

reply to post by Flatfish



White House still wants terror suspects tried in New York federal court
thehill.com...

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


Take no offense please when I say....
Who cares? You are from canada, therefore us in the US do not care what you think.
If I had something to say about your great prime minister, you would most likely tell
me the same thing.

nobody wants to speak about their nation's flaws to an outsider. I would just keep it to yourself.

My advice, become an American, then tell me how much your on his side, silly canadian.

Again, but I wonder if you are your nation's patriot, or just a blithering blkhd wanting to indulge in a reign of dicktatorship, Obama sucks IMHO, and am on my way to leave this country.

Just my thought, Peace.

I got a thread for you.... Why I would have chosen Hitler if I was a German living in his time, Blecchhhh.

reply to post by AK907ICECOLD


That's pretty much the perspective I've encountered. With that said, I personally find the occasional outside perspective refreshing. One thing I can say about your post and the others posted was that I respect the respect you and the other authors are writing with. Usually, and perhaps stereotypically it would be the Canadian who is polite, but nonetheless I did not take offense to your post.

As with most of the posts on here, if you attack the content and not the person I'm open minded enough to respect your opinion and maybe even empathize.

Originally posted by Flatfish

Taking these possibilities into consideration, I can't say that I would do any different if I were in his shoes. Would you?

It is hard to speculate with any accuracy. Who knows if one of us were in that position if we would do any different or BE ABLE to do any different.

Originally posted by AK907ICECOLD
Who cares? You are from canada, therefore us in the US do not care what you think.

Please speak for yourself and not for all who live in the US. Thanks.

I, for one, am very interested in an outside perspective. It's the only way to see the whole picture.

That is, when confronted with the knotty question of whether the US government can detain its own citizens within the nation's borders without charging them with a crime, Congress decided not to decide. Still, activists on the left and right remain concerned, because although President Barack Obama promised not to use that power, the law does not explicitly prevent him from doing so. In the months since Obama signed the bill in January, a strange-bedfellows alliance has raised such a ruckus over the legislation that Congress is now considering three separate proposals to amend the law.

The Revolt Against the NDAA Hits Congress

Why I wouldn't choose Obama.He Promised NOT to sign it too.

Originally posted by AK907ICECOLD
You are from canada, therefore us in the US do not care what you think.

I care what the mysterioushusky thinks. Claiming to be a good American and then playing the censor is an absolute contradiction. This is a discussion board and they are discussing a topic of interest. Although free thought and dynamic discussion is presently discouraged in our American society, some of us still strive to open our ears and accept others perspective out of respect, curiosity and as a point of moral dignity.

I cannot respect President Obama, either. He is another in a long line of executives who claim authority outside of the bounds of Constitutional law. However, if any non-American endeavors to read the Constitution and understand the historical context they might better understand America and !OMG! be compelled to opine. Reading the Constitution and attempting to understand our history is surely more than most Americans can claim to have done. One of the reasons many foreigners desire to voice their opinion of our country is because our government meddles in their sovereign affairs with frequency. Maybe this impacts them directly and concerns them.

Many Canadians, for example, might, of their own free will, come to the same conclusion I have. Maybe they believe that the founding ideals of The American People are beautiful and rare and worth defending. Maybe they understand that America is being played by a cabal of charlatans, quacks, and hustlers in the foreign city-state called Washington DC. Perhaps they conclude that the American people have removed themselves from their rightful station over government resulting in the current turmoil the world over.

Or they may draw their own educated and valid conclusion separate from my own. I can live with that. I accept that the only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas and never censorship.

reply to post by METACOMET



Very good outlook/perspective. If people go through their entire lives with a mindset of stone then they will seldom learn much. Sometimes you have to keep an open mind, but as a saying goes, not too open that your brains fall out. Hence being a cautious optimist who realizes that realism has some merit to it is the closest thing I have encountered to fit that saying.

Originally posted by MysteriousHusky

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


Individualism= greed and selfishness.

Truer words were never spoken. Hence running a country is a team effort split into different branches from the executive to the judicial to legislative.

It is much more than just the different branches of the federal government running a private economy.

In fact the whole problem is that we only have a private economy which means it is all for-profit rather than community oriented service. Europeans have understood community service to mean social welfare(social security, medicare and medicaid, welfare/disability, unemployment) as well as electricity, telephone, airlines, parks, libraries, military research and development, prisons, medical facilities, public transport, etc to be public oriented service......meaning the government runs such services on behalf of the tax-payers who pay for it.

The last 2 decades europeans have started to resemble america with extensive privatisation of EVERYTHING under the guise of economic reform, which itself is an extremely well organised jewish banker(masonic?) conspiracy.

"the need to cut taxes and the need for economic austerity" is right out of the right hand playbook under the guise of "freedom loving people" and "the best government is the one that governs least". Less government maybe a nice ideal, but they never mention cutting down on the military industrial complex nor the need for public banking.

reply to post by sonnny1


The following is a quote from President Obama justifying why he signed the Act

chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.

See www.whitehouse.gov...

Feel free to correct me on this but didn't the Republicans bundle some other stuff into the Act that was necessary for renewal because I know it's not the first time they have tried to incorporate other items into an act/bill that needs passing.

Originally posted by MysteriousHusky
reply to post by sonnny1

 

The following is a quote from President Obama justifying why he signed the Act

chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.

See www.whitehouse.gov...

Feel free to correct me on this but didn't the Republicans bundle some other stuff into the Act that was necessary for renewal because I know it's not the first time they have tried to incorporate other items into an act/bill that needs passing.

Republicans/Democrats are the same . Tha'ts what you truly need to know. Our Liberty's in America,have been fast tracked into Tyranny. NDAA,Patriot Act,Gitmo, Wars,Bailouts,You name it. Trust me,You might want to reconsider Obama. Congress at 13% approval rating. That's 13 percent ! Clearly America knows,but its too blinded by rhetoric,and TV Reality shows to do whats right. Throw ALL the Bums out.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Truer words were never spoken re: individualism = selfishness and greed was an oversimplification on my part. Ultimately it depends on whether you believe human nature is fundamentally good or whether we are fundamentally prone to make bad choices that may benefit us in the short term.

Eisenhower warned about the MIC and the fruition of companies like Lockheed Martin has been a testament to the rise of private industry cohabiting with the military. As with the sunbelt, rustbelt etc, around Los Angeles has become home numerous manufacturing companies that focus on aircraft etc as part of a manufacturing industry that caters to the military.

Here's a good LA Times article from 2008 you might enjoy:
Defense industry may see leaner times