• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

The rapidity at which you change subjects makes facing the facts a task measured in microseconds. My reaction time simply isn't that fast.

At one time while often times disagreeing with you I thought you were at least consistant in your beliefs. That's something I respect. I see where I was wrong.
 
Good question. It should be noted that this was a bi-partisan embarressment.


That's because "progressivism" exists on both sides of the political isle, and IMHO is a disease in this country. Problem is, that we have an example in Europe as to what this does unchecked, yet we ignore it and barrel faster down that track.


j-mac
 
Bottom line is that Obama opposed the detention measure, but had to accept it to avoid a gap in military funding. Obama attached to it one of the few signing statements that he has issued: "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

In other words, if you want to bitch about this provision, don't blame Obama.
 
Bottom line is that Obama opposed the detention measure, but had to accept it to avoid a gap in military funding. Obama attached to it one of the few signing statements that he has issued: "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

In other words, if you want to bitch about this provision, don't blame Obama.


:lamo:lamo Obama campaign bumber sticker for the 2012 race....


"Obama 2012 - It's not my fault"

:lamo:lamo


j-mac
 
That's because "progressivism" exists on both sides of the political isle, and IMHO is a disease in this country. Problem is, that we have an example in Europe as to what this does unchecked, yet we ignore it and barrel faster down that track.

Authoritarianism isn't progressivism.

(And it's "aisle.")
 
Bottom line is that Obama opposed the detention measure, but had to accept it to avoid a gap in military funding. Obama attached to it one of the few signing statements that he has issued: "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

In other words, if you want to bitch about this provision, don't blame Obama.

He pushed for it.

Daily Kos: Sen. Levin Charging That Obama Asked for Americans be Subject to Life-Long Military Detention.
 
Authoritarianism isn't progressivism.

(And it's "aisle.")


Authoritarianism is not Progressivism, that's true, However, Progressivism can indeed be Authoritarian.

And I prefer Isle, as in "the isle of kooks."


j-mac
 
When a law is anyting but absolutely clear, a politician will use it however they wish and claim it was their interpretation of the bill.
Yeah, well, read the Constitution then get back to us on how long that's been going on :roll:
There are no provisions in the Constitution that would allow a president to target an American citizen for death without due process either.
You change the subject a lot, don't you?
So we'll agree that the Constitution has no relevance to what Obama will do. (and who knows about future presidents)
You're having a nice conversation with yourself... don't let me interrupt.
Right, we wouldn't want to force you to actually face the facts.
The rapidity at which you change subjects makes facing the facts a task measured in microseconds. My reaction time simply isn't that fast.
At one time while often times disagreeing with you I thought you were at least consistant in your beliefs. That's something I respect. I see where I was wrong.
Since I have not materially participated in the discussion you are having with yourself, I am at a loss to see how the consistency of my beliefs have been determined (other than conjured via strawman), and I must advise that attacking me personally will still not prompt me to address your strawman.

Your original flippant comment (quoted deep above) was shown to be shallow and flippant by direct comparison to the Constitution. At that point your 'argument' went off into the Twilight Zone. Sorry I didn't take the bait, but there's no need to get nasty about it <shrug>
 
It can be, but it doesn't have to be. And other ideologies can also be. So your comment was completely nonsensical. If you meant authoritarian, you should have said "authoritarian."



Sure you do.

Pee Wee's Big Adventure - Bike Flip - YouTube


heh, heh, heh....Cute....At least you libs are good for something. Remember "Obama 2012 - "It's not my fault"


j-mac
 
heh, heh, heh....Cute....At least you libs are good for something.

I don't consider myself a "lib." Nor do I consider comments about ideology, or personal observations, to be worth anything.

I do value good spelling.
 
I don't consider myself a "lib." Nor do I consider comments about ideology, or personal observations, to be worth anything.

I do value good spelling.


Then may I suggest that you avail yourself someplace where someone gives a crap?


j-mac
 
Que the partisans that were angry at Bush for signing the Patriot Act complaining about this in 3...2... Oh wait, it's a Democrat this time. Nothing to see here or be enraged about. The same holds true for conservatives that approved of the Patriot Act and are attacking Obama for signing this because there is a D next to his name.
 
Then may I suggest that you avail yourself someplace where someone gives a crap?

You seem to give a crap - you brought it up after all.
 
You seem to give a crap - you brought it up after all.


No, see obviously I do care enough about the topic to respond, what I don't give two ****s about is what you happen to think, post, or care about...Clear?


j-mac
 
I love how liberal progressives lie. For a President who values extraordinary rendition and placing assassination orders on Americans, Obama didn't have any reservations signing this bill.
 
No, see obviously I do care enough about the topic to respond, what I don't give two ****s about is what you happen to think, post, or care about...Clear?

But you are the one who stopped talking about the topic and started talking about me. So you must care a little. Do you now not care? If so, awesome - my point finally sunk in.
 
I love how liberal progressives lie. For a President who values extraordinary rendition and placing assassination orders on Americans, Obama didn't have any reservations signing this bill.
Then why did he issue a signing statement?
 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/


Hope and Change. Yes We Can. Change We Can Believe In. A New Beginning. Vote for Change. Help Me Take Back America. Our Time for Change.

Mr. President, either you're lying about why you signed this bill, or you're a coward. Either you're happy the Presidency has a new tool to put in the chest, or you didn't have the guts to tell Congress to send you an authorization bill without that junk attached. Either Congress sent it to you knowing you'd be pleased to sign it despite all of your public bellyaching, or they knew they had you outgunned.

Either way, you're an embarrassment to the office and to the country. You sold us out. Go **** yourself.



What we need is a liberal.
 
Oh it's totally ok guys, he really feels conflicted over signing it!

If Ron Paul weren't such a lunatic I'd probably vote for him this time around. We need like a Ron Paul Light.
 
Last edited:
Then why did he issue a signing statement?

For show. Obama likes to lie and has a long history of it. He is as concerned about this bill as he is with the Bush tax cuts. Remember, he was "conflicted" over those too.
 
Back
Top Bottom