Obama vs. Bush

Status
Not open for further replies.
evince said:
easily you just have your brain set on creepy assed cracker mode
Click to expand...

If by best you mean most tyrannical, then yeah he certainly has a shot at it. But if by best you mean, most effective, productive, supportive of the Constitution, etc. then no, he cannot be considered the best.

So I guess it depends on whether or not you like freedom. If you don't then hey, he's probably pretty good. If you do though...
 
billy can you cite some policy and its origins to prove what you claim is true?

or you just going to keep jacking off in the pool?
 
evince said:
billy can you cite some policy and its origins to prove what you claim is true?

or you just going to keep jacking off in the pool?
Click to expand...

Ok. He signed the NDAA, allowing for indefinite detention of American citizens without being charged of a crime. He also has ordered and approved the killing of American citizens without formal trial. Are those good enough examples? Or is that 'jacking off'?

And fuck you for calling me a racist.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act


The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a United States federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. Each year's act also includes other provisions. The U.S. Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the National Defense Authorization Act and defense appropriations bills. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent.[1]
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ar_2012#Controversy_over_indefinite_detention


Controversy over indefinite detention[edit]




"Section 1021.... Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force ... includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. … Section 1022. …. Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force ... in military custody pending disposition under the law of war."

—Excerpts from NDAA 2012, sections 1021 and 1022.[43]

American and international reactions[edit]

Section 1021 and 1022 have been called a violation of constitutional principles and of the Bill of Rights.[44] Internationally, the UK-based newspaper The Guardian has described the legislation as allowing indefinite detention "without trial [of] American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay;"[45] Al Jazeera has written that the Act "gives the US military the option to detain US citizens suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial, indefinitely."[46] The official Russian international radio broadcasting service Voice of Russia has been highly critical of the legislation, writing that under its authority "the US military will have the power to detain Americans suspected of involvement in terrorism without charge or trial and imprison them for an indefinite period of time;" it has furthermore written that "the most radical analysts are comparing the new law to the edicts of the 'Third Reich' or 'Muslim tyrannies.'"[47] The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine and The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times[48] and other news organizations



Now tell me what would happen if he didn't sign this with the package to fund the military?
 
So because this is in the bill Obama vetos funding for the military.

what would be the real life consequences?
 
evince said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ar_2012#Controversy_over_indefinite_detention


Controversy over indefinite detention[edit]




"Section 1021.... Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force ... includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. … Section 1022. …. Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force ... in military custody pending disposition under the law of war."

—Excerpts from NDAA 2012, sections 1021 and 1022.[43]

American and international reactions[edit]

Section 1021 and 1022 have been called a violation of constitutional principles and of the Bill of Rights.[44] Internationally, the UK-based newspaper The Guardian has described the legislation as allowing indefinite detention "without trial [of] American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay;"[45] Al Jazeera has written that the Act "gives the US military the option to detain US citizens suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial, indefinitely."[46] The official Russian international radio broadcasting service Voice of Russia has been highly critical of the legislation, writing that under its authority "the US military will have the power to detain Americans suspected of involvement in terrorism without charge or trial and imprison them for an indefinite period of time;" it has furthermore written that "the most radical analysts are comparing the new law to the edicts of the 'Third Reich' or 'Muslim tyrannies.'"[47] The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine and The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times[48] and other news organizations



Now tell me what would happen if he didn't sign this with the package to fund the military?
Click to expand...

Nothing. There was NO reason to sign it, except to expand his federal powers.
 
Pete Campbell said:
eLkvnXr.jpg
Click to expand...
At least Obama is competent. Bush could have fucked up a wet dream.
 
the republican party has a new label.

Its called the creepy assed cracker party.

Its my tribute to a young man this country failed to protect with sane laws to keep some creepy assed cracker from thinking it was open season on young black men.


Hey for over a decade the republicans have called the Democratic party by the wrong name so I guess its just fine if I relabel YOUR party
 
evince said:
the republican party has a new label.

Its called the creepy assed cracker party.

Its my tribute to a young man this country failed to protect with sane laws to keep some creepy assed cracker from thinking it was open season on young black men.


Hey for over a decade the republicans have called the Democratic party by the wrong name so I guess its just fine if I relabel YOUR party
Click to expand...

Who exactly are you talking to? Me? The guy who's voted LIBERTARIAN in every election?
 
I can see saying Democrat instead of Democratic Party is very similar to Creepy Ass Cracker and Republican Party. Makes sense to me. Just a couple of letters either way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top