posted July 02, 2012 04:33 PM            

Love you, Herman

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 02, 2012 06:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Pawlenty's Obamneycare is far more clever.

---

Well, Doing it on a small state level is one thing. Doing it on a national scale is quite another. It is a large train wreck

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 03, 2012 01:27 PM            

if romney is elected it will be because he is considered to be a "signing hand" who will do the bidding of the billions being spent to buy him the white house. if he has the cajones to buck his backers once in power he will get a BIG surprise. i wonder if he is that stupid?

posted July 03, 2012 01:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
i think it is naive to think that romney will repeal the AHA. smoke and mirrors is what the campaign trail is generally about, and even if he believes he will do so now, if he gets to the white house he will find out that the insurance industry is a lot tougher than he thinks.

if romney is elected it will be because he is considered to be a "signing hand" who will do the bidding of the billions being spent to buy him the white house. if he has the cajones to buck his backers once in power he will get a BIG surprise. i wonder if he is that stupid?

if anyone is in a postion to buy the white house for himself, it is romney, but he is letting others pay for all the dirty work. so i suspect he is either already in cahoots, or he IS that stupid. which is worse?

---

It is about worse or worser. O'Bomber is worser imo
That is what it comes down to. An honest politician would probably be killed, if they could not marginalize him.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 03, 2012 04:02 PM            

JFK was far from perfect, and I'm convinced he won the 1960 election only because of vote fraud against Nixon, but he made some courageous moves to try and defeat corruption in D.C. For example he challenged the Federal Reserve by returning to the Treasury Department the power to issue its own money, with Executive Order 11110. Some say that was tantamount to Kennedy committing suicide.

I think RFK was also determined to actually do some good, and that's why he was killed.
Too virtuous.

posted July 03, 2012 09:36 PM            

Obama's list of pro-Establishment, neoconservative accomplishments is too long for me to conjure up after a long day. But his constant, almost matchless pandering to the power elite speaks for itself, there's nothing to judge, the facts are in plain sight:

First things that come to mind for me are, he expanded the wars, did NOT want to withdraw troops from Iraq but then, like a weasel, claimed credit for it; he basically invaded Libya without Congressional oversight, defying the Constitution and ruining even more people's lives; set up High Value Detainee Interrogation Units for the future torture of US Citizens; opened "Gitmo North" in Illinois; openly declared America a battlefield; oversaw the targeting and killing of mourners by drones in the Middle East (death toll by drones is estimated at over 2,000...of course, the neoconservatives will say, they were merely inhuman terrorists, even the children); grinned like a Cheshire Cat when people around the world continued to adore him even after he did the exact opposite of everything he promised.

So those are the facts. I see them. Other people see them.

What's remarkable...what's truly mystifying... is how many people stoutly refuse to see Obama for what he is. This is the cult mentality that gave rise to other horrific regimes of the past.

posted July 03, 2012 09:56 PM            

quote:

---

This is the cult mentality that gave rise to other horrific regimes of the past.

---

YES YES YES times infinity

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 04, 2012 02:21 PM            

The High Value Detainee Interrogation Units were specifically designed to provide more transparency than occurred under Bush. There's no support for a theory that it was designed for torturing U.S. citizens, and most particularly U.S. citizens not engaged in aiding terrorism. With regard to torturing non-U.S. citizens, any action must meet the Army Field Manual guidelines, which means none of the torture-esque techniques of the Bush Administration era.

"Gitmo North" is not open: http://www.thomsonil.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=168:thomson-correctional-center-plans&catid=44:news-around-thomson&Itemid=110

Declared America a battlefield. In Obama's NDAA signing statement he says, "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law." NDAA was struck down in court Wednesday, May 16th, 2012.

quote:

---

What's remarkable...what's truly mystifying... is how many people stoutly refuse to see Obama for what he is. This is the cult mentality that gave rise to other horrific regimes of the past.

---

posted July 04, 2012 03:44 PM            

1) Was Obama really for troop withdrawal?
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/

What are your sources?

2) Libya invasion was a flagrant violation of U.S. law. There is no legitimate defense for Obama's actions there. None.

But according to General Wesley Clarke, Libya was targeted ten years ago by "the crazies" (Project for the New American Century aka PNAC...now re-formed into the Foreign Policy Initiative) as one of many countries to invade.

Of course, he's not the only one who saw it coming. I'll furnish you with more links if you are interested.

3) Your Gitmo North link is outdated.

quote:

---

On December 15, 2009, President Barack Obama, via a Presidential memorandum, formally ordered the departments of Justice and Defense to arrange Federal ownership of the prison, and prepare for transfer there of both Federal prisoners and Guantanamo detainees.[10] According to previous press reports, the acquisition plan contemplated housing there up to 100 inmates from the camp, in addition to other federal prisoners.[11] The Federal Bureau of Prisons will erect a more secure perimeter fence, so its perimeter security exceeds supermax standards.[12] The portion of the Thomson prison that will be used to house Guantanamo detainees will be operated by the Department of Defense, while the rest of the prison will be operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

---

Obama's position on HIG and the NDAA show his willingness to expand the police state. T*rture, in itself, is alarming enough. T*rture is the mark of a barbarous society, and the same people who loved Obama for being anti-t*rture before he became President are now turning a blind eye to it.

Obama specifically requested that language be put into the NDAA to include Americans being eligible for treatment as terr*rists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY

The standing of the legislation does not change the fact that it was Obama's intention to further dismantle the legal framework of the Constitution.

Consistent with that action, Obama appointed Elena Kagan, sister of PNAC co-founder Donald Kagan, son of uber neocon Robert Kagan, to the Supreme Court. She is explicitly in favor of preventive detention.

What's your excuse for preventive detention?
Are you aware of it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbslm1h8xjI

I just get the impression that you are neoconservative yourself, but you don't realize it, because you haven't been looking closely at the increasing violence about us, and the meaning of it. You seem to just assume that Obama is fighting the bad guys, and only them, keeping you safe.

It's a dangerous dream.

With all this being said....

I hold nothing against you personally and apologize for the tension here. I am just fed up with the illusions surrounding Obama.

posted July 04, 2012 05:38 PM            

Libya was fine. The precedent was set before Obama ever did anything.

My Gitmo North link isn't outdated. Search around the internet to see if it ever happened. Chances are, you'll find as I did, that nothing has come of it. That's why I ended up posting the town's website as evidence that nothing has happened. Your link is from 2009. Your wikipedia article is one I saw when researching it. It doesn't say that the order was ever carried through.

quote:

---

Obama's position on HIG and the NDAA show his willingness to expand the police state.

---

If Obama signed it into law with a note saying that it's essentially an unnecessary piece of regulation, and he's only going to enforce it in a way that is Constitutional, he's not exactly endorsing it, is he? He should have vetoed it perhaps, but now that's all moot.
Regarding your video, did you read the comments?

This is an edited video ! It's a hoax. The reverse is true, that President Obama insisted that the detention provision NOT apply to American citizens, and he added that in the Signing Statement.

Why do you believe everything you're told?
Jkirk3279

I don't have time to fact check this statement, however, it is consistent with Obama's signing statement about the law.

I'll look into preventive detention later. I think Elena Kagan was appointed to the Supreme Court because she's an excellent negotiator, a Taurus.

posted July 05, 2012 08:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
You are quoting YouTube comments to me as "proof" that live video of Senator Carl Levin's testimony is a mere "hoax." SERIOUSLY? That's the best you can do?

---

Somebody else to call you on your stuff, AG. I have given up

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 05, 2012 09:57 AM            

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-ndaa-aclu-303/

Please read that whole article. For your own sake. Or read SOMETHING. Challenge your "suspicions," they are just blind trust in someone who is not who you think he is.

posted July 05, 2012 10:41 AM            

Faith, your own article backs what I've said. It indicates that Obama had reservations about it as did his staff.

When he signed the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama said that he had his reservations over the controversial legislation that will allow for the indefinite detention of Americans.

Now some of the president’s pals are expressing their agreement with Obama’s own hesitation but say that the commander-in-chief should have thought harder before signing away the civil liberties of Americans.

Initially the Obama administration said the president’s advisers would recommend a veto, but later rescinded the threat.
- Your article

How many different ways can you be given information that directly contradicts your point of view before you stop, and question your beliefs? Also, my citing of the comment on that YouTube video was due to the fact that I foresaw that the video was indeed misleading. You haven't disproven that comment, and instead you posted an article that confirms Obama's feeling uneasy about it. Don't selectively pay attention to things you read. Take everything in.

posted July 05, 2012 10:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Ami, it's so rare for anyone to legitimately call me on anything here, and this is no different.

Faith, your own article backs what [b]I've said. It indicates that Obama had reservations about it as did his staff. How many different ways can you be given information that directly contradicts your point of view before you stop, and question your beliefs? Also, my citing of the comment on that YouTube video was due to the fact that I foresaw that the video was indeed misleading. You haven't disproven that comment, and instead you posted an article that confirms Obama's feeling uneasy about it. Don't selectively pay attention to things you read. Take everything in.[/B]

---

What do you mean. AG? Honestly, you are so slippery with your statistics and so resistant to seeing anything new, that I have given up. You are very closed minded. You may think that of me, and I am sure you do, but I do have a set of beliefs from which I derive my life POV, which is the Bible.

Yours are all based on some root, which i cannot figure out, as it makes no sense imho

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 05, 2012 11:35 AM            

quote:

---

Yours are all based on some root, which i cannot figure out, as it makes no sense imho

---

Yes, the root is what is rational and what is real. I have an unusually rational mind.

posted July 05, 2012 01:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Ami, it's so rare for anyone to legitimately call me on anything here, and this is no different.

Faith, your own article backs what [b]I've said. It indicates that Obama had reservations about it as did his staff.

When he signed the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama said that he had his reservations over the controversial legislation that will allow for the indefinite detention of Americans.

Now some of the president’s pals are expressing their agreement with Obama’s own hesitation but say that the commander-in-chief should have thought harder before signing away the civil liberties of Americans.

Initially the Obama administration said the president’s advisers would recommend a veto, but later rescinded the threat.
- Your article

How many different ways can you be given information that directly contradicts your point of view before you stop, and question your beliefs? Also, my citing of the comment on that YouTube video was due to the fact that I foresaw that the video was indeed misleading. You haven't disproven that comment, and instead you posted an article that confirms Obama's feeling uneasy about it. Don't selectively pay attention to things you read. Take everything in.

There is more, if you'd like me to disprove your video as well. Of course, you could find what I'm going to present yourself, but something tells me you'd rather continue to believe something that is false to believing something that is true.[/B]

---

AG,

A key difference between us is, I look at the whole picture and what Obama is DOING while you still count his WORD as proof of his intentions. So any article I give you, you will just zero in on Obama's words and count that as the final authority?

How about this? http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

There is more than just Carl Levin's testimony indicating that Obama explicitly requested that language be put in the NDAA to specify Americans' eligibility for preventive detention.

posted July 05, 2012 01:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Faith, on Elena Kagan: I don't generally buy the argument of guilt by association. Coming from a Conservative family does not dictate that one will become a Conservative. Political affiliation is not heriditary.

---

Sure.

But she is explicitly in favor of preventive detention. That is, incarcerating people forever for NO CRIME, with NO TRIAL and NO CHARGES.

That anti-human attitude is wholly consistent with the tradition of her family and the neoconservative agenda of global dominion that Obama is facilitating so well.

posted July 05, 2012 01:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
you are so slippery with your statistics and so resistant to seeing anything new, that I have given up.

---

Wise of you to do so, Ami.

posted July 05, 2012 01:08 PM            

The whole history of Obama with regard to this bill is reported here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/11/1044215/-The-Rest-of-What-Levin-Said-on-NDAA-Provisions

posted July 05, 2012 01:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Yes, the root is what is rational and what is real. I have an unusually rational mind.

I think you say controversial stuff just in an effort to talk with me. You know that you have no basis for calling my posting of facts "slippery." If you could dispute what I say, I have to conclude that you would, but you don't even engage in debate. [b]Obviously you're the one with the closed mind. Also obviously, I'm the one that is constantly trying to get people to prove what they're saying, because I simply can't be convinced without any good argument whatsoever. Mine is not a closed mind, it's a rational one, and rational minds need compelling arguments. [/B]

---

This is one of your big problems, with all due respect. You trust statistics. They can be made to say anything. For YOUR statistic, I could find an opposite one. I talk about principles, not stats, for that reason.

Some statistics, I would believe, but I would have to TRUST the group gathering them such as Frank Luntz, for example.

I don't trust government stats from O'
Bomber or his ilk, for example.

If you ever took a Statistics course, you may have a more jaundiced view of the numbers you like to throw on here, AG

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal