The President Obama Thread

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Thread Manager, Nov 6, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Marx

    Marx Pixelated

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    55,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    #676
  2. Kelly

    Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    69,905
    Likes Received:
    2
    #677
  3. CGHulk

    CGHulk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,759
    Likes Received:
    0
    #678
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2013
  4. Bathead

    Bathead The Oldest Geek

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,209
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting that the two largest spenders were Republicans, (by an almost 8 to 1 ratio) a group that is always loudly complaining about how much the Dems spend.
     
    #679
  5. Kelly

    Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    69,905
    Likes Received:
    2
    I think this is the interesting part of the article....


    Hmmmm....interesting...


    I think this is a very telling article, with some very interesting stuff in it. AND, shows why I never voted for a Republican after Bush I. None of them have been the Fiscal Conservatives that I felt was needed. But, the two years used as examples are very interesting.

    I will hold my full opinion on this until I know all of the "ins and outs" of Obamacare.

    I will say this, difference between 2008 and 2010-2013...Government spends less when nothing gets done. Why I like the fact that Texas Legislature is in session about half as long as the Federal government. : )
     
    #680
  6. chaseter

    chaseter Esteemed Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    45,677
    Likes Received:
    5
    That graph is a misleader. Bush's last year in office spending jumped huge amounts. The deficit was at $1.2 trillion Bush's last year. Since then, Obama has continued spending around that amount so that the growth of spending hasn't jumped up by much since he is still running $1.2-$1.3 trillion deficits. Deficits and budgets again are very tricky. All you have to look at is the national debt. Who is adding the most to the national debt???
     
    #681
  7. Matt

    Matt IKYN Guy Groupie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2000
    Messages:
    80,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good thing Obama waited until after the election for this. He would've lost Ohio in a landslide if he pulled this **** in October. :o

     
    #682
  8. Kelly

    Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    69,905
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have to say that 60 minutes interview with Obama and Clinton was vomit inducing....learned absolutely nothing new....and again, vomit inducing. AND I LIKE HILLARY..... : /
     
    #683
  9. Marx

    Marx Pixelated

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    55,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't get to see it... :csad:
     
    #684
  10. Kelly

    Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    69,905
    Likes Received:
    2
    My question is this? Why would he want to do this with Hillary? I just don't get it....
     
    #685
  11. Kelly

    Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    69,905
    Likes Received:
    2
  12. Optimus_Prime_

    Optimus_Prime_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,668
    Likes Received:
    0
    #687
  13. chaseter

    chaseter Esteemed Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    45,677
    Likes Received:
    5
    No one? Bueller, Bueller...
     
    #688
  14. Kelly

    Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    69,905
    Likes Received:
    2
    This brings up something I was thinking about the other night. I see this every once in awhile around here....but never either have the time to go further with it, or even bring it up...

    I have noticed certain stories that have been in the news about Obama, etc...and they never see the light of day in the forum, OR....a person brings them up, but they never get discussed. It is actually pretty interesting...I have one that I'm watching right now that a mod posted yesterday, we shall see....

    This goes the opposite as well....I'll try and keep up more with it...

    Has anyone noticed how little media there has been about Hurricane Sandy...the clean up, where the money is being spent, etc...since the election...? Again, kind of interesting...OH, EXCEPT the article to slam Boehner for not putting the money bill up for a vote (even though it was full of pork, and spending for other things OTHER THAN THE HURRICANE CLEAN UP)...that was all over the news.
     
    #689
  15. dnno1

    dnno1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    12,986
    Likes Received:
    0
    White House Response to a petition to have him impeached:

     
    #690
  16. Marx

    Marx Pixelated

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    55,034
    Likes Received:
    0
  17. Fading

    Fading ---

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    30
    So, I've been hearing about the white house trying to make it so they can kill Americans abroad with drones based on suspicion that they may pose danger to the US, without any sort of hearing or trial. Which apparently goes hand and hand with the 16 yr old boy who died in a drone strike, and it was brushed off as he was "affiliated" with his father the terrorist.

    Now this bothers me. I've defended drones as I think they have the potential to cause less collateral damage striking a target surgical, and directly, without putting our troops in harms way. I draw a clear line at being able to kill our own people based solely on suspicion as soon as they leave our borders, without courts, media, or anyone else being involved.

    First there was the double tapping. Now it's almost straight up assassination on our own people. I sincerely hope Obama turns this down as I find it...just wrong (I'm assuming it's not already in place). Imagine if our cops blew up the homes of suspected meth dealers, instead of making an arrest, and taking them through the legal system to definitely prove innocence. Yes I know police =|= FBI/CIA, and meth dealers =|= terrorist plotting mass murder, I couldn't think of a good analogy.
     
    #692
  18. Marvolo

    Marvolo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    37,660
    Likes Received:
    110
    While I agree there is a grey area, I'm of the opinion that any person, American or otherwise, forfeits their rights when they make it their mission to attack this country and its people. Why should this country award you any rights when you are plotting its destruction? If you want to turn yourself in and come peacefully you can have your day in court. But if you are in a combat zone plotting with the enemy you should go down with them. As far as I am concerned, the second you take up arms against us you are no longer an American.
     
    #693
  19. samsnee

    samsnee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    11,424
    Likes Received:
    80
    The problem is that if this Presidency can make this case, what's to stop the next Presidency from taking it a little further?
     
    #694
  20. Marvolo

    Marvolo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    37,660
    Likes Received:
    110
    I agree, their is a dangerous precedent here, but its better to do it now and fix any problems later than let even worse guys get away because we can't kill one of our own traitorous dogs.
     
    #695
  21. Schlosser85

    Schlosser85 Watchful Protector

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    28,225
    Likes Received:
    79
    I'm not convinced about that.

    The Nazis burned down the Reichstag to pin it on Communists, then used it to declare a state of emergency and grant Hitler "emergency powers" that he never gave up.

    I'm not saying Obama is making this up, but stuff like this, and the attitude you're expressing of "security > civil liberties" is a very slippery slope.
     
    #696
  22. Marvolo

    Marvolo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    37,660
    Likes Received:
    110
    I know it is which is why some things should be only available in time of war. But you could argue a future president could declare war just to suppress his people, but that is what checkpoints are for. Our country was built with checkpoints to make sure people in power could not extend that power in unwanted ways. This is no different. I'm fine with bombing our traitors, but I want checkpoints ensuring this can't take place in the States.

    And like I've said in another thread, and a lot of other people have said, capitalism doesn't work in an oppressed society. If our government wants to keep its fat wallet it can't turn the country into a police state. In our current economy it is not likely that a president will ever bomb and opress his own people. Washington and the capitalists wouldn't allow it.
     
    #697
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  23. terry78

    terry78 I'm gonna need more rope

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    78,078
    Likes Received:
    41
    And this is why this argument will go in circles.
     
    #698
  24. SV Fan

    SV Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    For all the "Obama doing this is the END OF AMERICA as we know it" fear mongering we got over the past 4 years, this is one issue(killer drones attacking US citizens) they could easily have an argument for but for the most part they seem rather quiet on the issue
     
    #699
  25. Fading

    Fading ---

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    30
    While I agree we should be able to prevent an eminent attack without being handcuffed, I just don't agree "suspicion", and being "affiliated" (i.e. being family in the proximity) should warrant the death sentence without trial. Especially against our own people.

    What if intel is wrong, and it was just some jerk joking around with his friends online. Court would figure out he's just some insincitive asshat on vacation, this policy could mean his death. I'm hoping, assuming they'd only use this in extreme circumstances, where a clear threat is coming. However, this is giving our government some losely interpreted power to kill Americans abroad. IMO, this is constitutional over reach, and a blank check.
     
    #700
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"