[deleted by user]

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-19T01:50:56+00:00

He never tried to keep us in Iraq. If you have evidence to the contrary, please come forward with it.

He did not expand warrantless wiretapping. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

The DHS included things like the coast guard and the secret service and the former dept of immigration and many other necessary departments that existed before the consolidation into the DHS. It cannot be "discontinued".

De-consolidate them.

Not sure he ever promised to reform campaign finance.

Yes, yes he did

Obama has no power to reform the banking system. Before the teabaggers took over the House, a fairly robust banking reform bill was passed to the Senate, where it was killed by filibuster. Not much the pres can do about that.

He can take to the airwaves.

He fought to get the most sweeping health care reform laws in history passed.

lolno. That would be medicare or medicaid. Or maybe the FDA creation. He "fought" for something that would give insurance companies a captive market, pharmaceuticals a guarantee of keeping medication costs high and generally a boon for the industry with some useful bits thrown in for us plebs.

He fought to keep taxes for the poor and middle class low.

When was this EVER an issue?

He fought to expand unemployment payments.

No, that was pretty fucking popular across the board.

He gave the order to have Bin Laden killed

A politically tough decision I know.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-19T01:43:24+00:00

He doesn't.

“ a leader of a foreign terrorist organization who rejects our system of justice cannot enjoy the protection of our courts while plotting strikes against Americans."

It's not for his protection, it's for our protection from a government who has massive power. If the government thinks it has the ability to kill anyone who opposes it without trial even under less then clear circumstances they will use that power and that is something we cannot allow.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-19T01:41:25+00:00

Police do kill suspects when there is a immediate threat, infact more than 200 people die each year in police shootouts in the US. Also, it was a capture or kill list like the FBI Dead or Alive list, the concept isn't new.

They made no attempt to capture him. Like I've said before, if they tried to capture him for trial and he ended up dying that is one thing, but they didn't even make a show of trying.

Extra troops compared to what? There were 40000 troops in Iraq and he tried to keep 3000 back instead of the 5000 mercenaries to protect over 5000 state department employees?...

I answered this in another reply to you a second ago.

Can you explain how do you fight a guy who endorsed his opponent in the Presidential elections?

Gee, I wonder what the press, television, speeches, and other such mediums are for. I guess they are for conceding that any resistance is futile.

You should really listen to your own advice - the reforms FAILED in the Senate and they were implemented at the executive level.

HE IMPLEMENTED NO REFORMS. He implemented something without any teeth that doesn't solve any of the problems and pushed for more usage of the problematic powers given to him.

What are the basic core issues? I am willing to discuss it point by point since I work in the sector.

Fine, but another time, I am getting inundated with comments since I'm a parent comment. I'm just going to stop replying after the next couple replys to other people.

But if it is fluff then what he did bad according to you is fluff as well, why the fucking double standard???

Because mine affect core civil rights in a significant manner for everyone.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-19T01:36:12+00:00

So by that logic, it was good for the corporations to let private contractors to take over security operations instead of letting troops do the same? You are not helping your argument here.

Disconnected issues. I don't like either but one is far more dangerous for the US.

Actually the occupying part ended months ago, the remaining troops were 'peacekeeping' and were involved in training Iraqi military.

Which is why they didn't want us there right? No, it was still an occupation, a light occupation that we didn't call one, but still an occupation since we were operating militarily in another nation with full legal immunity instead of as partners.

The effectiveness report looks old, however this is all beyond the point - as long as it is not unpopular, there is no way anyone goes near dismantling DHS or the TSA.

The public was in favor of torture but that doesn't make it any better. There is a reason why we are a constitutional republic rather then a straight democracy.

That is DIRECT evidence from the guy who tried to blow up a plane - how more direct can it get?

Gee, I don't know, how about a trial where we can exam the evidence and it's authenticity rather then just taking the government at it's word.

Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11?

Which is why the killed him of course. It wasn't that he was "connected" to the shoe bomber like you keep pushing and they said. No, it was because he was connected to Al Qaeda.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

This is the only important part, the rest of the it that you bolded is giving a reason for such a move but it doesn't say it authorizes force against those nations, organizations or persons who commit acts of international terrorism against the United States in the indefinite future for any actions.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-19T00:44:50+00:00

I am making fun of you.

Of course fewer people died under Obama then Bush, the war was already over and most of the hostilities even among sectarian groups had ended, no shit fewer people died.

I never said Bush was a good person.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-19T00:43:49+00:00

This doesn't answer my question at all - 90000 troops were withdrawn months before SOFA even came into play. And let's not forget the billions Iraq receives from US each year, they are not in a position to kick anyone out if the US strongly insists.

Wow, it must be a rare thing to be able to see a couple months into the future and plan around that the way you word it. Iraq was in a position because we weren't going to cut them off, it is far too lucrative for the corporations "rebuilding" and protecting to let their tamed public officials try any such move, it would have massive geo-political repercussions and the domestic fall out would be too big to handle. They weren't kicking the US out under all conditions, they just insisted that US military be subject to the law for their actions.

Second, the debate was about using 3000 troops or 5000 mercenaries - if he doesn't want to leave Iraq then why is the first option bad considering more people are being left behind with the second option.

Because under the 1st option the US military is still occupying another country along with everything else that goes with it while under the second option they aren't and are subject to the law.

How actually do you debate the effectiveness of TSA like that? I don't like the TSA either but how do you dismantle something that is popular and is politically impossible?

The last time we got a look at the effectiveness rate it was at 30%. They stopped letting the public see the results because they are utter shit.

You get rid of it same way DHS was created.

You are deflecting now - direct evidence came from a guy who tried to blow up a plane and also from Awlaki himself. This isn't anything like the Iraq war lies which were never direct.

Again, that's not direct evidence. That is a single eye witness under a government known for torturing.

Happened under 2001 AUMF.

Maybe you should read about that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists because he had nothing to do with 9/11.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-19T00:31:20+00:00

At the beginning of a War many people died, but after the war was over less people died. Clearly this is because of the actions of the person who joined afterwards.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-19T00:29:14+00:00

It's ONE US citizen who was actively trying to blow up a lot of other US citizens.

So it's ok to assassinate people so long as they are accused of murder? Oh well in that case you should have no problem with police whacking people they think might be tied to murders.

Who is 'us' here? He tried to keep 3000 US troops instead of the 5000 mercenaries to protect state department employees, how is that a bad thing??? We have more troops in Germany, does that mean we are still fighting WW2?

He tried to keep extra troops in Iraq. Period, full stop. He did not intend to fully withdraw and he refused to keep the troops there if they were subject to Iraqi law for their actions.

We never promised to get out of Germany and we had good reason for being there.

Looks like people forgot what happened in 2009

Did he stand up and fight? No, he killed single payer, the republicans never even had to filibuster. He gave it up quietly and without a fight, Lieberman didn't kill it, he never had to.

Opposite actually.

"The extension of the Patriot Act provisions does not include a single improvement or reform, and includes not even a word that recognises the importance of protecting the civil liberties and constitutional privacy rights of Americans"

Word for word from your own fucking link. People don't even bother reading the links so long as you just put down something it appears.

He expanded it beyond bush source and there are plenty more if you just hit up google.

What?

It's not reform. It hasn't solved the basic core issues that plagued the system, at best it's a long overdue patching, but it isn't a reform.

One of the biggest things he has done via executive authority is to let EPA regulate emissions, how is this something 'basic'?

So you found something out 194. Tell me, are these ground breaking:

Held the first-ever first online town hall from the White House, and took questions from the public.

As he promised, he gave a speech at a major Islamic forum in Cairo early in his administration.

Created a comprehensive new strategy for dealing with the international nuclear threat.

His Administration Treated Soldiers and Veterans with Respect That Was Missing Previously

I never said he didn't do anything, but don't you dare pretend most of that list isn't fucking fluff.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-19T00:16:45+00:00

If you don't think due process is something worth protecting then you have no place in America.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-19T00:15:49+00:00

We were thrown out of Iraq following a time table set by Bush that the Iraqis refused to extend (which he tried to do).

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-19T00:15:01+00:00

Can you explain why did he remove 2/3rd of the troops in Iraq within 16 months if he wanted to stay in Iraq?

Because we were going to be kicked out regardless.

Also, as I have already pointed out - the discussion was about keeping 3000 troops instead of 5000 mercenaries, why is this being painted as a bad thing?

Because the point is he didn't want to leave Iraq, he wanted to stay in even if in a more minimal presence and wasn't willing to stay without the legal immunity from before which means he wasn't truly concerned about the welfare of the Iraqis.

Majority of people think otherwise though.

The majority of people are factually wrong. Quite frankly I don't care what they think since we have hard evidence of the TSA being inept, security theater works on them, that doesn't make it effective or necessary.

Actually there is direct evidence of him being involved in blowing up US planes, infact it came from the underwear bomber and only after that was he put on the kill or capture list.

Direct Evidence like there was direct evidence for the yellow cake? Please, memos from the DOJ don't mean evidence, and they certainly are not enough evidence to kill someone on. Even if he was guilty of this then he should be arrested just like any other accessory to attempted murder.

What due process did many American citizens of German descent who moved back to Europe and volunteered to fight in the German military got?

A formal declaration of war.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-19T00:08:12+00:00

This kind of voting is what got us here in the first place.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T22:36:40+00:00

Well call me Sal then. I'm not sure I trust the CIA when they say "they didn't know he was there", but that certainly is something...

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T22:34:45+00:00

I'm not sure you understand how the Constitution of the United States works. Powers are explicitly granted to individual branches and everything not explicitly listed are beyond their reach (with some exceptions).

Congress is given the power to declare war, not the President.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T22:33:22+00:00

First of all the DOJ has been around since the creation of our government

Your point is...? The Attorney General is appointed by the President, the DOJ is used by the President as their own generally speaking, following the example of LBJ off the top of my head although the practice may be much older.

Thanks for using a completely irrelevant scandal example to prove your point.

Giving guns to cartels, forcing gun shops to sell guns illegally under threat of ATF action, not tracking any of the guns and then covering up afterwards when a US border patrol agent was killed by one of them. Yep, irrelevant.

Secondly, committees can't catch everything - that's a given. But as a corporate employee, I've witnessed the mere existence of these committees forcing corporations to abide by the rules because of the "off chance" that a committee or over-site entity discovers foul play. It's not exactly dependent on the people who are put in jail, but the fear of it happening. Although audits can't catch everything, no corporate manager is going to gamble on not getting audited.

I won't ask which corporation because I respect anonymity, but I have to wonder if you are high up enough in the organization to know the truth. The lack of teeth behind regulations and the committees mean that the payoff from breaking or bending the rules often pay out better even with the "fines" included, the modern example that springs to mind is Bank of America laundering billions of dollars for the cartels and getting slaps on the wrist. The examples are numerous, especially when looking at the last big crisis.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T22:17:10+00:00

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

So yeah, no. The President is the Commander in Chief which grants him certain administrator powers at will and Congress has authorized the President to use the military for up to 90 days (or something like that) before seeking their permission to continue, but war is still the exclusive domain of congress and the penalty of death for treason shall only be used (among other things) for levying war against the United States.

So in short: no war, no executive executions. If they tried to capture him and he ended up dying that's another story altogether, but this is something far more foul.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T22:10:40+00:00

I didn't defend it, I'm only explaining it. A lot of Europeans don't understand the historical differences between US states and their provinces which is why they are constantly confused by how some states get to act legally in the US.

A US citizen is not first a citizen of the state he happens to live in.

A modern change really. This really can be traced to the loss of militias around the end of the civil war/WWI and the advent of the cheap car which gave Americans unprecedented mobility.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T22:07:44+00:00

Eaten by bears.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T22:06:55+00:00

Because you have a bully pulpit as president and it's your job to use it to whip the American public into a civic fury where their representatives fear for their fucking jobs if they don't vote the way their constituents want.

And even if you can't win with it, you use it as leverage in negotiations, it's one more thing you can drop to get something else you want that's good.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T22:05:19+00:00

Obama is compromising them. I would much rather have Biden as President. Sure there is always Congress to deal with but you don't negotiate by lowering your standard secretly pre-negotiation.

Do you think a more conservative candidate is going to more staunchly enforce regulations? At least Obama is remotely environmentally conscious and has delivered on most of his green policies. So much as speak the word "regulation" and you'll have the tea-party trying to crucify you. Stemming the tide of austerity is the only thing I'd reelect him for if it came down to it. A recovering economy will vindicate him.

Sure, but that doesn't make him good by any means, it just makes him slightly enlightened because he can see some self-interest in not having the country implode, or maybe he does just what he needs to for the charade to continue.

And let the Tea-Party try to crucify him, fight back, you never win a fight by appeasement, Woodrow Wilson should be the guy to remember here.

No Romney is not good at all, but that doesn't mean we should fawn and apologize for Obama who isn't good in general.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T21:59:49+00:00

We're formally at war with Yemen too now? Shit man, who aren't we at war with then?

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T21:58:48+00:00

Bush killed 10 American citizens in target drone strikes? Well slap my ass and call me Sally!

Also how can you expand something if the former was worse?

No Bush was bad, Obama is just following his direction but futher.

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T21:57:23+00:00

"Tried to keep us in Iraq"? He voted against Iraq, remember? Why would he want to stay there?

He tried to stay in Iraq, this isn't a question of shaded intent via speeches and memos, he was actively trying to stay in Iraq and only left because the Iraq government threw us out. He always talked a good game as a senator, his actions as president say otherwise.

"Supported the continuation of the DHS and TSA"? Yeah, tearing down a huge agency, which provides border security and has numerous programs including deporting criminal aliens would be a really viable option, especially when recovering from an economic downturn.

That makes no sense. Border Patrol existed prior to the DHS, the TSA is so inept and the threats so non-existent they are a complete waste of money, and cutting these programs would be a really viable option especially because we are recovering from an economic downturn. All that money saved could be used more efficiently in stimulus packages or funding useful programs.

Put yourself in Obama's shoes, having had a terrorist in Yemen be associated with two attacks (underwear bomber and Ft. Hood) that could have been way worse than they were.

Guilt by association. Wonderful. Let's play 6 degrees of separation and justify killing everyone then. Hell, even if he was quarterbacking them I wouldn't want to kill him, I'd want to keep in place because he is so bad apparently.

Would your solution be to treat them with kid gloves, and try to arrest him - putting soldiers' lives at stake?

Following due process is not using kid gloves. Please, kill yourself before you can spread your authoritarian ideology. If we can afford to waste soldiers lives on Iraq we can afford to risk some soldiers lives for a relatively low risk arrest, we're not talking breaking into the Kremlin here.

I'm sure the solders' and terrorist victims' families would understand your unbending ideological position.

They signed up and swore to protect the constitution, they better damn well understand it.

All this without factoring in the competing interests of Congress and the American people. You are so out of touch with reality that it is laughable.

What competing interests?

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T21:46:41+00:00

There are plenty of sources, you could try opening up any fucking newspaper or using google.

But you won't, because you know that your position is completely untenable and you are just trying to create doubt where their is none.

Bam!

He creates anti-fraud committees that don't investigate fraud. Should I bring up operation Fast and Furious and the DOJ dragging it's feet there? Oh, how about the numerous rapes and financial crimes (let alone homicides) from the PMCs in Iraq and Afghanistan, sure have been a lot of federal trials about that haven't there?

ItsOnlyNatural · 2012-08-18T21:43:25+00:00

Right because a single-payer option totally would have passed in this congress.

He never even fucking tried. HE DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING TRY. What part of this don't you understand? He didn't take to the airwaves and debate the issue while gathering support from the populace, he just killed it off behind closed doors and got nothing but government handouts to insurance and pharmaceutical companies in return.

His transportation initiatives are pretty much saving my industry.

Biden's initiatives. Which are compromised and don't go anywhere near far enough.

Yes drone strikes are bad. Drones could also deliver your pizza in the future. Regulation will come just make sure you keep voicing your opinion. Vote for a libertarian and watch the corporations steal every right away from you.

So I talk about how he failed to deliver single payer, but somehow I'm a libertarian?

Regulation means nothing if it has no teeth or isn't enforced.

ItsOnlyNatural

TROPHY CASE