Barry woke up to some realities. i hope he does the same on economics. Close and merge banks that squandered money.Make THEM pay it back.Imprison their board for lack of oversight.Imprison the ceo', cfo's, etc.Transparency on credit default swaps and other markets.If your able bodied, get an f'n job or two.If you produce children, take care of them.
You mean torture doesn't mean long term bombardment of twisted information that attacks a person making stress? You mean torture doesn't include the attempt of dressing up as your enemies' friends in order to bash a person and fake accidental shootings? You mean terror isn't when they tell you that they are applying cyber attacks? You mean torture isn't when they hurt your head and subject you to tests that map your thoughts. So it is ok then to move a person around for your espionage work?
Read up on the depression of 1920. Their was no government intervention with the economy. Not only that but spending was cut in half. And it was over in less than 2 years, which is probably why so many people haven't heard of it. We are doing the exact opposite now. We're spending unbelievable amounts of money and intervening with the economy more than ever. Not to mention if the Federal Reserve system (which Obama wants to give more power to) continues inflation can only go up.
What you guys need to understand is that Bush did not create the recession. The Federal Reserve (which isn't Federal and has no reserves) did through keeping interest rates close to nothing. Bush was a terrible president because he had no concern whatsoever for our Constitutional rights. Obama is going to do to our economy what Bush did to our civil liberties. There is no chance of the economy getting better if we keep doing what Obama is now.
OBusha will not bring any change. He is a lobbyist whore and loves Al-CIAda. His continuation of Bush policies will cost him the 2012 election. He'll be a one-termer.
It really depends on who the opposition (the RNC and LNC) field as an opponent to Obama. Bush sucked in 2004 but Kerry was soo inept that Bush managed to win. If we get a Kerry-type candidate as Barry's major opponent, he may be a 2 termer.
Hey, you put up with 8 years of stupidity, why not let Obama have year before all the negative criticism. Don't be so gullible as to swallow all that radical right wing B/S .
By then we'll be destroyed. Time to stop that dickhead now before he screws up America even more. Why in the world would you want to give him more time? If your child is running for the middle of the street wouldn't you want to stop him NOW instead of waiting to see what will happen?
bpentium, you've been listening to Limbaugh and Cheney too much. Forget about their scare tactics and think for yourself. Do a little research before you swallow that B/S. You can do it, just use your head and try not to panic. So far Obama has done the best he could with expert advice to get the economy jumping.
Oh and the economy is jumping right off a cliff. President Obama promised that with stimulus, unemployment wont go over 8%. We are now over 9% and climbing. We are in for a greater depression than 1929 and everything he has done since he got into office has only made it worse and he is telling us he is going to spend more. We could be in an economic deep freeze until 2020 if we're lucky
Like I said be patient. It took the Repubs years of working to make the rich, richer and the middle class poor. Why would you wish that Obama fail in his efforts to clean up the mess they left ? You praised the decisions that GW Bush made, which most were detrimental to this country, so let Obama have his chance to fix that mess.
What is "that radical Right Wing"? was it a group of Anarchists running the government? Oh, wait a minute, with anarchy, there is no government.
You must get your news from the NY Times, MSNBC and CNN, That is why you are so "informed". You also know that Bush was stupid too, because they told you. President Obama should be the one that scares you. That man is dangerous
Just GOOD common sense will tell you not to pay any attention to the naysayers. Stay away from the loud mouths, like Limbaugh and O'Reily that get paid millions for peddling B/S and you should do alright. FYI FOX news isn't considered a news source by most intelligent people.
I hate to say this but we are talking about politicians here, who historically, always smoke screen the public and tell them what they need to hear to get elected. Slight of hand is not only a magician's trick. Political parties do it all the time by changing names and locations for what they intend to do..... 4 more years sound familiar? Try 16 more years of being failed by politicians...possibly longer...Those guys are millionaires and we the people are getting ready to starve.
I voted for Obama, and feel that I have been given a crumb, and told to eat cake. Where is our healthcare, where is the end of torture, where is the bailout money, how much money are we printing, when are you going to repeal the PATRIOT act, reinstate Posse Cometatus, etc.....
Dude. Obama supported warrantless wire tapping and much more totalitarian laws.
He wants to make it legal for the police and border guards to look through your computer if they so choose.
He pretended to be a centrist, but he's not for people helping others pay for health care if he needs it, he's for the government controlling that entire sector and more. The government sucks at pretty much everything it does.
Seriously, Obama is just as bad, if not worse than Bush.
Worse will be hard to pull off, but I was making much the same point. He is not living up to the promises of his campaign. I am willing to give him more time, as it *appears* he is trying to do the right thing. Although appearances can be decieving, and with politics, usually are. He did agree to stop private insurance companies from becoming involved in veterans healthcare. Granted, only after large numbers of combat vets showed their disaproval.
Private companies deal with health care better than the public sector. Corporatism caused by government intervention and lobbyists has destroyed health care.
A proper private company has incentive to do its job and innovate, while the government doesn't. Think about it, if a company screws up, it goes bankrupt (unless it's bailed out), but when the government screws up, it continues the policy and is accountable to no one.
I would, as a general rule, agree, but health care would be my one disagreement. A company providing healthcare should focus on providing the best healthcare possible to all patients. Public companies, by law, must "put the fiduciary interests of the owners above all competing interests." Watch the movie, the corporation. Until there are some major legal issues addressed within the healthcare system, the government is, in my opinion, the best option.
Are you insane? Competition creates better healthcare not government policies. You do realize that healthcare providers compete for your business just like any other company. The healthcare system could be better but asking the government to fix it is not the answer. Go live in Haiti for awhile and let me know what you think of the American healthcare system after that.
" He did agree to stop private insurance companies from becoming involved in veterans healthcare."
Actually, he proposed that the VA would treat veterans for service related injuries/conditions and then would bill private insurance companies for the treatment. Before, the VA would treat and pay for any care given to veterans for service related conditions. Veterans were pissed because this would make it harder for them to get private insurance and also would likely max out thier coverage.
Not only that, but many veterans would feel betrayed if this plan went forward because the VA has been providing free healthcare to veterans who were injured during wartime since it's creation. Intially, the plan was proposed so the $500+ million saved could be used for other programs in the VA. This further incensed veterans because when compared to the recent bailouts etc. , the money saved is chump change.
The ACLU is never going to be my touchstone for what Obama is doing right or wrong. They DO NOT have America's best interest at heart, if they even have a heart. They were started by a Communist(big C) an avowed enemy of America. I'll never support them.
Lets give him time. One year should allow us a better idea of his heading in this matter. He has my trust for now. I will keep my eyes open, of course.
"we dont need any more time. obama has wasted over two trillion dollars."
First of all, you are off subject. Secondly, your talking point is shallow tripe. Please list what the 2 Trillion was spent on, where the money came from and who it went to. I doubt you can. Turn off Fox News for a little while. Oh and idiot"? I guess you attended Harvard Law as well?
"Didn't Mitt Romney graduate from both Harvard Business School with an MBA and get his JD from Harvard as well?"
Not sure. But then again he was the Governor of a US State and should be expected to have such qualifications. And Governor Romney did not call the President an "idiot", toyotacooper did. And so, my question was directed toward him.
Let's ask William Ayers how Barack got into Harvard... He could just maintain a C average in the community college where his roommate was a crack addict. How did he get to Harvard?
This man, IN MY OPINION, has done more damage in a few months than Bush "did' in 8, with the help of his democratic congress and senate.
"Let's ask William Ayers how Barack got into Harvard... He could just maintain a C average in the community college where his roommate was a crack addict. How did he get to Harvard?"
This is my opinion, you will feel the opposite, and we won't change each others views so this is pointless.
Actually, I CAN and every so often DO change my opinions. I have no special allegiance to an ideology or stance. The minute I am presented an argument that contradictions mine logically, the minute I consider the possibility that I may be wrong.
Your statement hear isnt new. I hear it over and over again from your kind. It is a simple admission that you never intend to change your mind, no matter the evidence presented. Dont compare me to you in this regard please.
"Everybody believes their politician is better, there are so many things that disgust me about Obama, you would have a different view on everything i would say, so yes, it is pointless."
What?
"Best of luck in your future, please don't message me back I won't be reading it."
Cover your eyes and plug fingers in your ears. You are truly American. Never have sheep been so proud to be sheep.
Hm, the two trillion came from.. oh, yes! Every tax payer!
It's going to.. hm, uh, oh right, not even the ones who passed the bills know where the money is going yet, damn.
The government sure is trustworthy. Recklessly spending my own money on programs that are controlled at a federal level, even though history has shown us the private sector always does a better job and they create more jobs.
Gee, I sure hope Obama will touch me on the shoulder and cure my genital herpes! Hail the Messiah!!
They will. This same scenario has been played out over the centuries, through every human society, with the same result. Tyranny always falls, and liberty prospers. The actions of the US government are not a Democrat vs. Republican, left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal issue any more. This is a Liberty vs. Tyranny issue, and the government has far overstepped its Tenth amendment bounds. There will be a peaceful revolution first - god help them if they don't step down then.
Anyone who actually believed that Obama would change the War on Terror policy is an idiot.
War on Terror just like War on Drugs or Economic Crisis is an excellent tool for a government to expand itself, exert its power over people, and strip people of their liberty.
Don't get suckered by either Democrats or Republicans. There is no meaningful difference between them. The real fight throughout history has been and still is between the power of the State and the liberty of People .
@hellnowewont I TOTALLY Agree! Anyone who believes in these politicians or our voting process needs to go out and get a new education. Doesn't matter who's in office, the banks rule and are the masters of the political pupets!
I don't take seriously any video that uses the ACLU as a source when talking about the rights of TERRORISTS. My God, were you all high when you made this?
Do enemy combatents that have been captured have constitutional rights? I'm pretty sure only citizens have the rights protected by our Constitution. If you do release these prisoners, where do you put them? Their loyalty isn't to any country or state, just to an ideology. I can't decide if waterboarding is really torture either. It leaves no physical scars but might leave some psychological ones. And it's not the guards waterboard whoever when they're feeling bored.
Obama: "The fact of the matter is that if I occasionally have mistaken your policies for George Bush's policies, it's because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people, on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities, you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush. "
Does any one remember this? Would I be accurate if I said "bait and switch"?
at least our previous president didn't hang with a domestic terrorist that actually murderd american civilian in american soil, nor did he launch his presidential candidacy from BILL AYERS home.
He's going totally against everything he was voted into office for. He's the most radical president in history. Doubtful he'll make a second term. His support is starting to jump ship. He's already losing democrats in the house and senate.
Soooooooo Reasontv wants the terrorists to have rights? You side with the ACLU on this issue? What the fuk? Should we just smoke some weed with them and give them a hug? You guys are fools, im unsubscribing from this shit!
volumedealer1-icancount2one Said it best to describe you. " Why don't you go liberate some FEMA concentration camps instead of having masturbatory revolution fantasies where you and your drunken hick buddies somehow defeat the greatest military force ever assembled? Oh wait, they don't exist! People like you will do anything to find a scapegoat for why your life sucks."
The ACLU is too liberal for my tastes in many cases. They insert silly things like housing as "rights" and hardly ever defend the 2nd Amendment. I mean, was ACLU the case that defended the gun owners in Heller? No! Does the ACLU ever lobby for gun rights? No! Hell, the ACLU even defends illegal immigrants!
whoo689, Give me a source for your "housing as 'rights'" claim.
Also, they're neutral on the 2nd Amendment. They don't fight for or against it. And I'm fine with that, because there are other organizations who will defend 2nd Amendment rights.
I strongly appreciate the ACLU standing up for 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment rights.
First of all, why does the death penalty somehow cost more than life in prison? No one ever really explains it, so we can know what wasteful things are being done to make it so costly. Eliminate the waste, and I'm sure it'll cost less than life in prison.
I don't think that's true, but that doesn't change the fact that many people supported Obama based on his promises to do the exact opposite of what he's doing when it comes to his War on Terror policies. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that Obama did not follow through on his promises.
I'm just curious. Did anyone here think we were electing some kind of magic messiah?
Does anyone here actually want the office of the Presidency to have the power to utterly reverse the course of the nation?
Does anyone here not see a difference between spending to better our country, and spending and preemptive wars to better Haliburton?
People are freaking out about the spending, but it seems that if you're going to be reasonable, that you have to acknowledge that not all spending is equal.
I think too many libertarians fail to differentiate between innocents/civilians and criminals or terrorists who are convicted and known to be guilty. I don't think we should treat both of them EXACTLY the same. The guilty need to be treated with much more suspicion, and to be honest, I'm all for the death penalty as a general matter of principle for convicted guilty murderers. If you bomb and kill dozens or 1000s of civilians like on 9/11, I can't excuse just letting you stay alive.
No, I don't buy into the idea that the death penalty deters murder, but I'm just for it in principle. To me, for guilty convicted murderers and bastards who commit heinous crimes, it's not all that "cruel and unusual." I don't think a person who can't respect another individual's right to life should have his right respected. It's a slap in the face to the victim and his family. Life imprisonment isn't enough, if u ask me.
And as for the costs, I'm sure we can find a way around it.
Typical Marxist tactic: divide the enemy. Makes it so much easier to win. The only way to beat the Marxist agenda is to get a majority of people to stand together against it.
The only change was there was is a semi black man in the white house. I can't belive anyone fell for this hype. Next election VOTE THIRD PARTY. FOR REAL CHANGE Ron Paul 2012
Obama was hand picked by members of the Elite when he was back in college - just so they could have some of their guys on the inside to implement the NWO doctrines - sugarcoated by Obama
OH NO!!! NOT MARX!!! HOW FUCKING TERRIFYING!!! ...I have a suggestion: try coming up with some kind of substantive criticism of Obama and not these same bullshit conservative scare tactics. Please!
His redistributionist economic policies will bankrupt the country. His apologetic foreign policy will make him popular at America's expense. His judges will overthrow legislatures to enact the unpopular aspects of Obama's radical agenda. His centralization of power will create dangerous new precedents for America's future. His class warfare agenda will criminalize producers of wealth. Worst of all, his blind evangelical followers will refuse to listen to any criticism of him or his policies.
1: The country's already bankrupt. Besides, the current policy of allowing giant corporations to redistribute the wealth doesn't seem to be much better. It would be better if the government just stayed out of the whole thing and let a more natural system of "wealth distribution" take place, but good luck finding more than 5 Republicans who want to do that!
2: Wait! Is his policy more expansive or is it more "apologetic"? How can it be both!?
3: Oh, please. "Activist judges" is a common conservative bullshit dog whistle. I believe that "activism" in favor of civil rights is ok. Otherwise, you're right. I'll give you that.
4: Who's the last president who actually reversed the course of ever-increasing centralization? Was it Reagan? I somehow doubt that, but you'll score some points if you can make a good argument for it.
5: Like I said earlier, this is a legitimate concern, but there's a difference between wealth creation and...
5. Agreed. I think state governments are in a better position to deal with this issue than the federal government, though. The federal government has overburdened itself because politicians have made too many promises in order to keep getting elected.
3. We're just gonna disagree here. I believe that activism "in favor" of civil rights is dangerous for a couple of reasons: a) the judicial system is not structured to do so (see Dred Scott, Wickard v Filburn, etc.) and b) when the people believe that the judiciary will protect their civil rights, they stop voting to protect their rights and instead vote themselves money out of the public treasury (they "sleep on their rights", if you're familiar with the phrase).
2. His war on terror policies are expansive, such as wiretapping, detainment, and aggressive interrogation. But that's more domestic than foreign policy. His foreign policy seems to consist mostly of the idea that people can be paid to not hate us any more, especially if they attribute the money to him personally and not to the gratuity of the American people.
1. Well, I can think of 3 real free-market Republicans off the top of my head... but I don't think Ron Paul, Jeff Flake, or Mark Sanford will ever be elected president, a reality I often lament. I'd even settle for a reality in which people listened to them!
2. Thanks. That was a good explanation. I think I learned something.
See what we're doing here? I think they call this rational discourse... it feels good, doesn't it? Better than arguing?
You gotta admit, it's difficult to have a rational discourse in this medium. It's so much easier to say "Obama = Marx!! YEARGHFLMBNMLGFH!!!" or "bullshit conservative scare tactics!! YEARGHFLMBNMLGFH!!!" Those techniques don't seem to communicate the ideas which need to be discussed, do they?
I think that pointing out something one considers to be bullshit is important. It's not like I was saying "Bush=Hitler!!" or anything. I guess I could/should have made some arguments for why I thought it was bullshit? ghpatriot didn't give me a lot to work with. The thing is you never know who's actually going to want to put in the effort to have a real discussion. That said, I think we had a good discussion. Since you explained point 3 more in depth, I think I might be closer to agreeing.
I just don't necessarily think "activism" is the issue. I was specifically talking about cases like Kelo v. New London, in which the "correct" decision went against what the elected people wanted.
Labels, such as "activism" or "Marxist" or "liberal/conservative" are, by their nature, oversimplified and designed to create an emotional reaction, but words are necessary to communicate ideas, and it has to be described somehow.
One thing I find surprising is that so many people who were highly critical of Bush's War on Terror policies are silent or even supportive of Obama's even more expansive policies.
There's some very cautious fibbing going on in this video. Admiral Blair declined to answer the waterboarding question directly because, as the new DNI, he didn't want to jeopardize present intelligence officials. He went on to say that he would ban the tactic completely under his watch. This video makes it sound like he condones the activity and will allow it to continue unabated.
"Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3 ." And he preserves rendition.
In other words, the administration has committed itself to complying fully with the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005. If the premise of your argument is that under no circumstances you can trust the Executive branch, then there's really nothing that can convince you that Obama is trying to be any more humane than Bush. Still, from what we know now it does appear to be different notwithstanding the disappointing continuation of the state secrets clause.
What? Bush supported and adhered to the Republican-backed Detainee Treatment Act, which was passed when Republicans had control of both houses of Congress. The premise of my argument is that Obama's treatment of detainees isn't significantly different than Bush's, a premise which I've actually given evidence to support. Your premise that Obama is "trying" to be more humane than Bush isn't based on anything other than Obama's hypocritical continuation of Bush's detainee policies.
It is so untrue to suggest that Bush supported the DTA. His people actively lobbied against its passage in Congress and though he signed it, he also used one of his infamous signing statements to in effect say that the law only applied as he saw fit. Obama has not placed any caveats thus far on his understanding of its dictates with regard to detainee treatment. Committing himself to following the FM is evidence of an improvement, not a continuation of the status quo...
If you read the FM, it specifically allows such interrogation treatments as putting someone in a freezing room for hours (and others). I don't know about you, but I'd rather be waterboarded for a minute than subjected to near-freezing temperatures for hours. I personally don't think either one is "torture", but if we're going to be reasonable about this, you cannot claim that freezing for hours is an improvement over waterboarding for seconds. There is no difference between their policies.
And Bush fought against the aspects of the bill that would have opened interrogators up to lawsuits for actions that had already been committed. Bush openly called for Congress' assistance in defining and regulating interrogation. In fact, he was widely criticized for doing so. If you're going to continue to spread your opinion around, at least have the decency to include accurate information.
This is another case of fibbing, sadly. The Military Commissions Act was primarily a response to the Hamdan case, and though it's true that Bush lauded one provision that allowed the CIA to continue its classified interrogation techniques, when the Congress clarified that the CIA was not allowed to use techniques outside of the FM, Bush vetoed that. Bush *never* claimed he would comply with the FM. Today, we have a president who claims he will. A big difference.
The changes he's made are superficial. He uses the word "torture" to describe the things that he's changed, but that's just a word. Torture has been outlawed for years, but Obama has made a big deal of the word itself, and so he has to make some political overtures to get the positive news coverage. I can't help but notice that you're ignoring rendition, which is pretty obviously open to extreme interrogation and techniques far more disturbing than waterboarding.
This is getting a little old. I take it you concede that the idea you previously got from "reading the FM" that the use of extreme temps was allowed was mistaken. If you don't trust or believe Obama, that's perfectly fine-- you don't have to embellish that opinion with innuendo. On rendition, I haven't seen Obama say anything about it. My view is that Panetta claimed to be for rendition to bolster his credentials to a skeptical Kitt Bond. Nonetheless, the CIA is now bound by the DTA.
Leon Panetta testified before the Senate that the administration's policy was to engage in rendition with the assurance that no one would be hurt, which has been our policy since the 90s. But because the CIA is so "bound", "U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role", according to the LA Times. So the big change here is that rather than conduct interrogations ourselves, we hand people over to someone who cares about human rights less.
I have to admit an error. The new Army FM does specifically exclude the cold-room treatment. I was referencing 34-52, which was replaced in September of 06, in what seems to me to be a complete overreaction. But a fact is a fact, and the FM is incredibly restrictive on allowed techniques. I guess that's why Obama made it clear that a task force would later determine what changes to make when there would not be so much attention and the changes could be made quietly.
It's similar to our environmental policies, where we pat ourselves on the back for not emitting pollution, but we buy the same products from countries that manufacture them producing more pollution than we would have. Loopholes always get bigger as policies become superficial.
clinton torture? surely you jest. he has a d after his last name! he wouldnt do something like that! what ring wing conspiracy member is funding this video?
They'll just plug their eyes and refuse to listen... they're kinda like the hear no evil; see no evil monkeys... dunno 'bout that speak no evil bit, though they do use fluffy terms like "progressive taxation" rather than "theft", so perhaps I'm wrong.
Oh no, I mentioned monkeys, now Jesse Jackson's coming after me! Aaaugh!
They're the same when it comes to wiretapping, interrogation, and detainment, and their foreign policies are somewhat similar, but their domestic agendas couldn't be more different.
His economic policies are far more redistributionist. For example, he wants to repeal Bush's signature tax cuts. His judges will overthrow legislatures to enact the unpopular aspects of Obama's radical agenda. His class warfare rhetoric promotes hatred of the productive class. He has no problem forcing taxpayers to pay for experimentation on human embryos and abortions for Africans and Mexicans, and he's far more likely to send taxpayer money to his pet causes than Bush.
Bush's domestic fiscal policy was to promise tax cuts, even as he increased domestic government spending, especially in doling out corporate welfare to banks.
Then Obama ran for office saying he hated Bush's economic policies, & would do everything differently, that he'd be the Anti-Bush.
Now President Obama is promising tax cuts, even as he increases domestic government spending, especially in doling out corporate welfare to banks.
Here we are, two years later.
MooseOfReason 8 months ago
Barry woke up to some realities. i hope he does the same on economics. Close and merge banks that squandered money.Make THEM pay it back.Imprison their board for lack of oversight.Imprison the ceo', cfo's, etc.Transparency on credit default swaps and other markets.If your able bodied, get an f'n job or two.If you produce children, take care of them.
idesofmarchUNIAEA 1 year ago
If cops using a taser is not torture, I do not what torture is.
truthsabre7 1 year ago
You mean torture doesn't mean long term bombardment of twisted information that attacks a person making stress? You mean torture doesn't include the attempt of dressing up as your enemies' friends in order to bash a person and fake accidental shootings? You mean terror isn't when they tell you that they are applying cyber attacks? You mean torture isn't when they hurt your head and subject you to tests that map your thoughts. So it is ok then to move a person around for your espionage work?
Nueroactive 1 year ago
Boy, it is a good thing they don't search YouTube for injustices or secrets.
Nueroactive 1 year ago
You mean we can't rely on Uzbekistan to treat people humanely ?
They get medieval in Uzbekistan, boiling alive in oil.
Nickalispicalis 2 years ago
guantanamo is a training camp for the future FEMA staff to detain US citizens.
wdcsucks1 2 years ago
@wdcsucks1 You're either A. Trolling OR B. LOLConspiracyTheorist
Tsteve08 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check this site out!
martiallawsurvival(dot)com
millersxtremedepot 2 years ago
Read up on the depression of 1920. Their was no government intervention with the economy. Not only that but spending was cut in half. And it was over in less than 2 years, which is probably why so many people haven't heard of it. We are doing the exact opposite now. We're spending unbelievable amounts of money and intervening with the economy more than ever. Not to mention if the Federal Reserve system (which Obama wants to give more power to) continues inflation can only go up.
thatmafiaguy 2 years ago 2
What you guys need to understand is that Bush did not create the recession. The Federal Reserve (which isn't Federal and has no reserves) did through keeping interest rates close to nothing. Bush was a terrible president because he had no concern whatsoever for our Constitutional rights. Obama is going to do to our economy what Bush did to our civil liberties. There is no chance of the economy getting better if we keep doing what Obama is now.
thatmafiaguy 2 years ago 4
I disagree with reason on this one.
AlanCom1 2 years ago
Yeah let's just put on our rose filter glasses....
rooftopeagle 2 years ago
OBusha will not bring any change. He is a lobbyist whore and loves Al-CIAda. His continuation of Bush policies will cost him the 2012 election. He'll be a one-termer.
Emperorlawson 2 years ago 13
Bush got two terms.
It really depends on who the opposition (the RNC and LNC) field as an opponent to Obama. Bush sucked in 2004 but Kerry was soo inept that Bush managed to win. If we get a Kerry-type candidate as Barry's major opponent, he may be a 2 termer.
HeadTater 2 years ago
Hey now, don't talk like that!
I'm hoping he doesn't even last an entire term. *cough* impeachment *cough*
gladeplugins 2 years ago 3
@Emperorlawson wow you redneck texans you sure are dumb
djkhaled412 1 year ago
Biden... BAHAHA... Obama...tax/spend liberal.. health care reform?! BAHAHAHAHA.... stupid liberal trash. Time will reveal your foolishness.
Europesucksdotcom 2 years ago 2
news flash, nothing is going to change
Invain01 2 years ago 2
Well I feel safer now that I know the ACLU is upset with some of O's policies.
souixz 2 years ago
Hey, you put up with 8 years of stupidity, why not let Obama have year before all the negative criticism. Don't be so gullible as to swallow all that radical right wing B/S .
beverynice 2 years ago
By then we'll be destroyed. Time to stop that dickhead now before he screws up America even more. Why in the world would you want to give him more time? If your child is running for the middle of the street wouldn't you want to stop him NOW instead of waiting to see what will happen?
bpentium 2 years ago
bpentium, you've been listening to Limbaugh and Cheney too much. Forget about their scare tactics and think for yourself. Do a little research before you swallow that B/S. You can do it, just use your head and try not to panic. So far Obama has done the best he could with expert advice to get the economy jumping.
beverynice 2 years ago
beverynice
Oh and the economy is jumping right off a cliff. President Obama promised that with stimulus, unemployment wont go over 8%. We are now over 9% and climbing. We are in for a greater depression than 1929 and everything he has done since he got into office has only made it worse and he is telling us he is going to spend more. We could be in an economic deep freeze until 2020 if we're lucky
MarkyBlueyes 2 years ago
Like I said be patient. It took the Repubs years of working to make the rich, richer and the middle class poor. Why would you wish that Obama fail in his efforts to clean up the mess they left ? You praised the decisions that GW Bush made, which most were detrimental to this country, so let Obama have his chance to fix that mess.
beverynice 2 years ago
What is "that radical Right Wing"? was it a group of Anarchists running the government? Oh, wait a minute, with anarchy, there is no government.
You must get your news from the NY Times, MSNBC and CNN, That is why you are so "informed". You also know that Bush was stupid too, because they told you. President Obama should be the one that scares you. That man is dangerous
MarkyBlueyes 2 years ago
Just GOOD common sense will tell you not to pay any attention to the naysayers. Stay away from the loud mouths, like Limbaugh and O'Reily that get paid millions for peddling B/S and you should do alright. FYI FOX news isn't considered a news source by most intelligent people.
beverynice 2 years ago
But doesn't Universal ultimately own or finance most of the media?
jksmba 2 years ago
Who owns those stations? Better yet, who financed the creation of those firms? Who trades them, and look who is trying to consolidated them?
jksmba 2 years ago
Why weren't these criticizers worried about what Bush was going to evenually do with these prisoners ?
beverynice 2 years ago
um, you do realize that bush is no longer the prez obama is? so where is all this change you guys were hysterical over?
bnisimpainurmortgage 2 years ago
Be patient, after all Obama's only be in office a few months. I'm sure he will be a great improvement over the last administration.
beverynice 2 years ago
He already reinstated the tribunals what exactly am I supposed to be patient with. HE MADE THE DECISION ALREADY. PAY ATTENTION.
bnisimpainurmortgage 2 years ago
LOL Bush light!
bgggbb 2 years ago
I hate to say this but we are talking about politicians here, who historically, always smoke screen the public and tell them what they need to hear to get elected. Slight of hand is not only a magician's trick. Political parties do it all the time by changing names and locations for what they intend to do..... 4 more years sound familiar? Try 16 more years of being failed by politicians...possibly longer...Those guys are millionaires and we the people are getting ready to starve.
G0dspelronin 2 years ago 6
I voted for Obama, and feel that I have been given a crumb, and told to eat cake. Where is our healthcare, where is the end of torture, where is the bailout money, how much money are we printing, when are you going to repeal the PATRIOT act, reinstate Posse Cometatus, etc.....
mtlsoul 2 years ago 2
Dude. Obama supported warrantless wire tapping and much more totalitarian laws.
He wants to make it legal for the police and border guards to look through your computer if they so choose.
He pretended to be a centrist, but he's not for people helping others pay for health care if he needs it, he's for the government controlling that entire sector and more. The government sucks at pretty much everything it does.
Seriously, Obama is just as bad, if not worse than Bush.
AshillaBeige 2 years ago 6
Worse will be hard to pull off, but I was making much the same point. He is not living up to the promises of his campaign. I am willing to give him more time, as it *appears* he is trying to do the right thing. Although appearances can be decieving, and with politics, usually are. He did agree to stop private insurance companies from becoming involved in veterans healthcare. Granted, only after large numbers of combat vets showed their disaproval.
mtlsoul 2 years ago 2
Private companies deal with health care better than the public sector. Corporatism caused by government intervention and lobbyists has destroyed health care.
A proper private company has incentive to do its job and innovate, while the government doesn't. Think about it, if a company screws up, it goes bankrupt (unless it's bailed out), but when the government screws up, it continues the policy and is accountable to no one.
Obama is Bush on steroids.
AshillaBeige 2 years ago 2
I would, as a general rule, agree, but health care would be my one disagreement. A company providing healthcare should focus on providing the best healthcare possible to all patients. Public companies, by law, must "put the fiduciary interests of the owners above all competing interests." Watch the movie, the corporation. Until there are some major legal issues addressed within the healthcare system, the government is, in my opinion, the best option.
mtlsoul 2 years ago
Are you insane? Competition creates better healthcare not government policies. You do realize that healthcare providers compete for your business just like any other company. The healthcare system could be better but asking the government to fix it is not the answer. Go live in Haiti for awhile and let me know what you think of the American healthcare system after that.
bnisimpainurmortgage 2 years ago 2
mtlsoul well then move to France
MarkyBlueyes 2 years ago
" He did agree to stop private insurance companies from becoming involved in veterans healthcare."
Actually, he proposed that the VA would treat veterans for service related injuries/conditions and then would bill private insurance companies for the treatment. Before, the VA would treat and pay for any care given to veterans for service related conditions. Veterans were pissed because this would make it harder for them to get private insurance and also would likely max out thier coverage.
fo694013 2 years ago
cont.
Not only that, but many veterans would feel betrayed if this plan went forward because the VA has been providing free healthcare to veterans who were injured during wartime since it's creation. Intially, the plan was proposed so the $500+ million saved could be used for other programs in the VA. This further incensed veterans because when compared to the recent bailouts etc. , the money saved is chump change.
fo694013 2 years ago
The ACLU is never going to be my touchstone for what Obama is doing right or wrong. They DO NOT have America's best interest at heart, if they even have a heart. They were started by a Communist(big C) an avowed enemy of America. I'll never support them.
hoosierarcher 2 years ago 2
Hussein vs. Bush. who will win America??? Islam vs. Christianity.
ISLAM ALWAYS WINS LOVE FROM FRANCE
bordeauxjean 2 years ago
Lets give him time. One year should allow us a better idea of his heading in this matter. He has my trust for now. I will keep my eyes open, of course.
HarryJAnslinger 2 years ago
we dont need any more time. obama has wasted over two trillion dollars. what an idiot. fuck him.
toyotacooper 2 years ago 2
"we dont need any more time. obama has wasted over two trillion dollars."
First of all, you are off subject. Secondly, your talking point is shallow tripe. Please list what the 2 Trillion was spent on, where the money came from and who it went to. I doubt you can. Turn off Fox News for a little while. Oh and idiot"? I guess you attended Harvard Law as well?
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Didn't Mitt Romney graduate from both Harvard Business School with an MBA and get his JD from Harvard as well????
anthonyklemm 2 years ago
"Didn't Mitt Romney graduate from both Harvard Business School with an MBA and get his JD from Harvard as well?"
Not sure. But then again he was the Governor of a US State and should be expected to have such qualifications. And Governor Romney did not call the President an "idiot", toyotacooper did. And so, my question was directed toward him.
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Let's ask William Ayers how Barack got into Harvard... He could just maintain a C average in the community college where his roommate was a crack addict. How did he get to Harvard?
This man, IN MY OPINION, has done more damage in a few months than Bush "did' in 8, with the help of his democratic congress and senate.
beckyglass116 2 years ago 3
"Let's ask William Ayers how Barack got into Harvard... He could just maintain a C average in the community college where his roommate was a crack addict. How did he get to Harvard?"
Are you mentally ill or just racist?
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
This is my opinion, you will feel the opposite, and we won't change each others views so this is pointless.
Actually, I CAN and every so often DO change my opinions. I have no special allegiance to an ideology or stance. The minute I am presented an argument that contradictions mine logically, the minute I consider the possibility that I may be wrong.
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Your statement hear isnt new. I hear it over and over again from your kind. It is a simple admission that you never intend to change your mind, no matter the evidence presented. Dont compare me to you in this regard please.
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
"Everybody believes their politician is better, there are so many things that disgust me about Obama, you would have a different view on everything i would say, so yes, it is pointless."
What?
"Best of luck in your future, please don't message me back I won't be reading it."
Cover your eyes and plug fingers in your ears. You are truly American. Never have sheep been so proud to be sheep.
TheLogicalTheist 2 years ago
Hm, the two trillion came from.. oh, yes! Every tax payer!
It's going to.. hm, uh, oh right, not even the ones who passed the bills know where the money is going yet, damn.
The government sure is trustworthy. Recklessly spending my own money on programs that are controlled at a federal level, even though history has shown us the private sector always does a better job and they create more jobs.
Gee, I sure hope Obama will touch me on the shoulder and cure my genital herpes! Hail the Messiah!!
itsbeatnick 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Thank you for allowing me to stop by!
Hey this is really GREAT STUFF HERE!
It inspired me to start a band too!
I would like to share with you what The Bailouts have been doing:
Please click on my posting link!
Enjoy and keep passing all of us at YouTube around!
4tomhenry 2 years ago
All of North America, and Western Europe, needs to revolt and overthrow the current administrations.
kgbkid02 2 years ago 5
That sounds BRILLIANT, next time, give some information when you say something.
TheSocialistTimes 2 years ago
They will. This same scenario has been played out over the centuries, through every human society, with the same result. Tyranny always falls, and liberty prospers. The actions of the US government are not a Democrat vs. Republican, left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal issue any more. This is a Liberty vs. Tyranny issue, and the government has far overstepped its Tenth amendment bounds. There will be a peaceful revolution first - god help them if they don't step down then.
silverhawks 2 years ago
Anyone who actually believed that Obama would change the War on Terror policy is an idiot.
War on Terror just like War on Drugs or Economic Crisis is an excellent tool for a government to expand itself, exert its power over people, and strip people of their liberty.
Don't get suckered by either Democrats or Republicans. There is no meaningful difference between them. The real fight throughout history has been and still is between the power of the State and the liberty of People .
hellnowewont 2 years ago 18
@hellnowewont I TOTALLY Agree! Anyone who believes in these politicians or our voting process needs to go out and get a new education. Doesn't matter who's in office, the banks rule and are the masters of the political pupets!
PeaceIsRad 1 year ago
I so hope he does not turn out to be another Jimmy Carter.
jamerson1000 2 years ago 2
Don't worry, he probably will be.
haytubenon 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
omg republicans suck democrats r the answer!!!!!
bearhuntaa 2 years ago
Revolution is the answer...
AlienScientist 2 years ago 3
I don't take seriously any video that uses the ACLU as a source when talking about the rights of TERRORISTS. My God, were you all high when you made this?
VanillaPrincess21 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
omg obama sux repuiblicans r the answer!!!!
bearhuntaa 2 years ago
SUSPECTED terrorists
Innocent until proven guilty under due process
electricneedleroom 2 years ago 2
lets be honest Barry Obama has been a huge disapointment in his early leadership. many democrats must be feeling the same way.
mothartrucker 2 years ago 2
They are. People I know who regularly vote democrat hate his guts now. :P
hullburke 2 years ago
Do enemy combatents that have been captured have constitutional rights? I'm pretty sure only citizens have the rights protected by our Constitution. If you do release these prisoners, where do you put them? Their loyalty isn't to any country or state, just to an ideology. I can't decide if waterboarding is really torture either. It leaves no physical scars but might leave some psychological ones. And it's not the guards waterboard whoever when they're feeling bored.
SonoftheRepublic1776 2 years ago
I believe that an enemy combatants' "rights" are defined in the Geneva Convention treaties?
d0861 2 years ago 2
I hate the UN.
All's fair in love and war.
SonoftheRepublic1776 2 years ago 5
Comment removed
Dutch2123 2 years ago
Comment removed
Dutch2123 2 years ago
McCain: "I am not President Bush"
Obama: "The fact of the matter is that if I occasionally have mistaken your policies for George Bush's policies, it's because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people, on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities, you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush. "
Does any one remember this? Would I be accurate if I said "bait and switch"?
TNROLM 2 years ago
YOu guy sound like you're giving in to the leftist. You're not even libertarian anymore.
Z14LDO 2 years ago
He's a fool!
And wtf are you trying to accomplish, ReasonTV!
And terrorist deserve to get the SHIT tortured out of them.
Z14LDO 2 years ago
That sentiment makes you no different than the terrorists who do that.
Quelkaima 2 years ago
at least our previous president didn't hang with a domestic terrorist that actually murderd american civilian in american soil, nor did he launch his presidential candidacy from BILL AYERS home.
Z14LDO 2 years ago
edit* he didn't launch it from his home he announced it.
Z14LDO 2 years ago
Leon Panetta can't deliver anything, look at that face. He's been constipated for 20 years.
scflyer55 2 years ago
Get rid of the 98-99% politicians in office.
They are corrupt,and greedy.
volumedealer1 2 years ago
He's going totally against everything he was voted into office for. He's the most radical president in history. Doubtful he'll make a second term. His support is starting to jump ship. He's already losing democrats in the house and senate.
NAGGERNUTZ 2 years ago 3
This is what I like to call pit and pendulum politics.
Libertarianist 2 years ago 2
Soooooooo Reasontv wants the terrorists to have rights? You side with the ACLU on this issue? What the fuk? Should we just smoke some weed with them and give them a hug? You guys are fools, im unsubscribing from this shit!
LiberalshateAmerica 2 years ago
Stupid people like you have names like that.
Why don't we just kill everybody that will solve the problem of the world.
volumedealer1 2 years ago
I prefer "Barack W. Bushbama" myself
CarryANation 2 years ago
volumedealer1-icancount2one Said it best to describe you. " Why don't you go liberate some FEMA concentration camps instead of having masturbatory revolution fantasies where you and your drunken hick buddies somehow defeat the greatest military force ever assembled? Oh wait, they don't exist! People like you will do anything to find a scapegoat for why your life sucks."
LiberalshateAmerica 2 years ago
But then the earth would be utopian, and we can't possibly have that now, can we? =p
Quelkaima 2 years ago
Sure we can buddy, just have to get rid of communist and liberals. ;-)
Z14LDO 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here's what you should do.Get some shit (preferably your brains) eat it ,and go die in the hole you crawled out of.
Conserservativeshatefreedom
volumedealer1 2 years ago
The ACLU is too liberal for my tastes in many cases. They insert silly things like housing as "rights" and hardly ever defend the 2nd Amendment. I mean, was ACLU the case that defended the gun owners in Heller? No! Does the ACLU ever lobby for gun rights? No! Hell, the ACLU even defends illegal immigrants!
whoo689 2 years ago
whoo689, Give me a source for your "housing as 'rights'" claim.
Also, they're neutral on the 2nd Amendment. They don't fight for or against it. And I'm fine with that, because there are other organizations who will defend 2nd Amendment rights.
I strongly appreciate the ACLU standing up for 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment rights.
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
First of all, why does the death penalty somehow cost more than life in prison? No one ever really explains it, so we can know what wasteful things are being done to make it so costly. Eliminate the waste, and I'm sure it'll cost less than life in prison.
whoo689 2 years ago
I don't think that's true, but that doesn't change the fact that many people supported Obama based on his promises to do the exact opposite of what he's doing when it comes to his War on Terror policies. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that Obama did not follow through on his promises.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago 2
I'm just curious. Did anyone here think we were electing some kind of magic messiah?
Does anyone here actually want the office of the Presidency to have the power to utterly reverse the course of the nation?
Does anyone here not see a difference between spending to better our country, and spending and preemptive wars to better Haliburton?
People are freaking out about the spending, but it seems that if you're going to be reasonable, that you have to acknowledge that not all spending is equal.
47f0 2 years ago
I think too many libertarians fail to differentiate between innocents/civilians and criminals or terrorists who are convicted and known to be guilty. I don't think we should treat both of them EXACTLY the same. The guilty need to be treated with much more suspicion, and to be honest, I'm all for the death penalty as a general matter of principle for convicted guilty murderers. If you bomb and kill dozens or 1000s of civilians like on 9/11, I can't excuse just letting you stay alive.
whoo689 2 years ago
No, I don't buy into the idea that the death penalty deters murder, but I'm just for it in principle. To me, for guilty convicted murderers and bastards who commit heinous crimes, it's not all that "cruel and unusual." I don't think a person who can't respect another individual's right to life should have his right respected. It's a slap in the face to the victim and his family. Life imprisonment isn't enough, if u ask me.
And as for the costs, I'm sure we can find a way around it.
whoo689 2 years ago
Typical Marxist tactic: divide the enemy. Makes it so much easier to win. The only way to beat the Marxist agenda is to get a majority of people to stand together against it.
Think independently. Vote strategically.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
Comment removed
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
Marx was a good guy from what I hear. Maybe Im wrong but his ideas turned out great.
ghpatriot 2 years ago
Ron Paul 2012 for sure.
ghpatriot 2 years ago 2
The only change was there was is a semi black man in the white house. I can't belive anyone fell for this hype. Next election VOTE THIRD PARTY. FOR REAL CHANGE Ron Paul 2012
NOMCCBAMA 2 years ago 2
WTF? "vote third party" "ron paul 2012" WTF WTF WTF? ron paul is a freaking republican .
spawk1993 2 years ago
I meant either Ron Paul or third party or both.
NOMCCBAMA 2 years ago
spawk1993, You vote based on party, rather than integrity?
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
WHAT? how did you get that?, And no, in fact I dont vote. :)
spawk1993 2 years ago
Obama was hand picked by members of the Elite when he was back in college - just so they could have some of their guys on the inside to implement the NWO doctrines - sugarcoated by Obama
pulpBleacher 2 years ago
Change you can believe in. LOL
ghpatriot 2 years ago 3
Obama = Marx
ghpatriot 2 years ago
OH NO!!! NOT MARX!!! HOW FUCKING TERRIFYING!!! ...I have a suggestion: try coming up with some kind of substantive criticism of Obama and not these same bullshit conservative scare tactics. Please!
joeyrufo 2 years ago
His redistributionist economic policies will bankrupt the country. His apologetic foreign policy will make him popular at America's expense. His judges will overthrow legislatures to enact the unpopular aspects of Obama's radical agenda. His centralization of power will create dangerous new precedents for America's future. His class warfare agenda will criminalize producers of wealth. Worst of all, his blind evangelical followers will refuse to listen to any criticism of him or his policies.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
1: The country's already bankrupt. Besides, the current policy of allowing giant corporations to redistribute the wealth doesn't seem to be much better. It would be better if the government just stayed out of the whole thing and let a more natural system of "wealth distribution" take place, but good luck finding more than 5 Republicans who want to do that!
2: Wait! Is his policy more expansive or is it more "apologetic"? How can it be both!?
joeyrufo 2 years ago 3
3: Oh, please. "Activist judges" is a common conservative bullshit dog whistle. I believe that "activism" in favor of civil rights is ok. Otherwise, you're right. I'll give you that.
4: Who's the last president who actually reversed the course of ever-increasing centralization? Was it Reagan? I somehow doubt that, but you'll score some points if you can make a good argument for it.
5: Like I said earlier, this is a legitimate concern, but there's a difference between wealth creation and...
joeyrufo 2 years ago 2
(5, cont.): "leveraging." We don't even have an economy in which we make things, so who's really creating wealth?
6: Sure, I'll give you that, too... ok, 2 or 3 out of 6... not bad. You're ahead of the curve, relatively speaking.
joeyrufo 2 years ago 2
5. Agreed. I think state governments are in a better position to deal with this issue than the federal government, though. The federal government has overburdened itself because politicians have made too many promises in order to keep getting elected.
6. So far I'm tied with you, it seems.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
3. We're just gonna disagree here. I believe that activism "in favor" of civil rights is dangerous for a couple of reasons: a) the judicial system is not structured to do so (see Dred Scott, Wickard v Filburn, etc.) and b) when the people believe that the judiciary will protect their civil rights, they stop voting to protect their rights and instead vote themselves money out of the public treasury (they "sleep on their rights", if you're familiar with the phrase).
5. Truman, I think.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
1. I can name at least seven.
2. His war on terror policies are expansive, such as wiretapping, detainment, and aggressive interrogation. But that's more domestic than foreign policy. His foreign policy seems to consist mostly of the idea that people can be paid to not hate us any more, especially if they attribute the money to him personally and not to the gratuity of the American people.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
1. Well, I can think of 3 real free-market Republicans off the top of my head... but I don't think Ron Paul, Jeff Flake, or Mark Sanford will ever be elected president, a reality I often lament. I'd even settle for a reality in which people listened to them!
2. Thanks. That was a good explanation. I think I learned something.
See what we're doing here? I think they call this rational discourse... it feels good, doesn't it? Better than arguing?
joeyrufo 2 years ago
You gotta admit, it's difficult to have a rational discourse in this medium. It's so much easier to say "Obama = Marx!! YEARGHFLMBNMLGFH!!!" or "bullshit conservative scare tactics!! YEARGHFLMBNMLGFH!!!" Those techniques don't seem to communicate the ideas which need to be discussed, do they?
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
I think that pointing out something one considers to be bullshit is important. It's not like I was saying "Bush=Hitler!!" or anything. I guess I could/should have made some arguments for why I thought it was bullshit? ghpatriot didn't give me a lot to work with. The thing is you never know who's actually going to want to put in the effort to have a real discussion. That said, I think we had a good discussion. Since you explained point 3 more in depth, I think I might be closer to agreeing.
joeyrufo 2 years ago
I just don't necessarily think "activism" is the issue. I was specifically talking about cases like Kelo v. New London, in which the "correct" decision went against what the elected people wanted.
joeyrufo 2 years ago
Labels, such as "activism" or "Marxist" or "liberal/conservative" are, by their nature, oversimplified and designed to create an emotional reaction, but words are necessary to communicate ideas, and it has to be described somehow.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
Well... thanks. It's pleasantly surprising to find someone who's interested in having a civil disagreement. I hope I didn't disappoint.
You're cool in my book.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
ha! I was going to say that about you, but there wasn't room in the field! (made me think of the movie "Death Proof" with Kurt Russell)
joeyrufo 2 years ago
Stalin???
ghpatriot 2 years ago
How bout FDR
ghpatriot 2 years ago
I will agree that he isnt Marx but he sure is a Social Democrat instead of an outright socialist.
chevydriver1123 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure you dont know anything about marx.
spawk1993 2 years ago
Your right, I just threw that in there. I dont know anything about him.
ghpatriot 2 years ago
There needs to be a bumper sticker saying
Obama = Bush + Tan
dhtpt 2 years ago 5
One thing I find surprising is that so many people who were highly critical of Bush's War on Terror policies are silent or even supportive of Obama's even more expansive policies.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago 3
There's some very cautious fibbing going on in this video. Admiral Blair declined to answer the waterboarding question directly because, as the new DNI, he didn't want to jeopardize present intelligence officials. He went on to say that he would ban the tactic completely under his watch. This video makes it sound like he condones the activity and will allow it to continue unabated.
colonelmatterson 2 years ago
He just replaced waterboarding with other aggressive interrogation tactics. Obama's torture policies are a change in name only.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
JohnJ2427, you seem to be really sure of that. Do you have any sources?
colonelmatterson 2 years ago
"Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3 ." And he preserves rendition.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
In other words, the administration has committed itself to complying fully with the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005. If the premise of your argument is that under no circumstances you can trust the Executive branch, then there's really nothing that can convince you that Obama is trying to be any more humane than Bush. Still, from what we know now it does appear to be different notwithstanding the disappointing continuation of the state secrets clause.
colonelmatterson 2 years ago
What? Bush supported and adhered to the Republican-backed Detainee Treatment Act, which was passed when Republicans had control of both houses of Congress. The premise of my argument is that Obama's treatment of detainees isn't significantly different than Bush's, a premise which I've actually given evidence to support. Your premise that Obama is "trying" to be more humane than Bush isn't based on anything other than Obama's hypocritical continuation of Bush's detainee policies.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
It is so untrue to suggest that Bush supported the DTA. His people actively lobbied against its passage in Congress and though he signed it, he also used one of his infamous signing statements to in effect say that the law only applied as he saw fit. Obama has not placed any caveats thus far on his understanding of its dictates with regard to detainee treatment. Committing himself to following the FM is evidence of an improvement, not a continuation of the status quo...
colonelmatterson 2 years ago
If you read the FM, it specifically allows such interrogation treatments as putting someone in a freezing room for hours (and others). I don't know about you, but I'd rather be waterboarded for a minute than subjected to near-freezing temperatures for hours. I personally don't think either one is "torture", but if we're going to be reasonable about this, you cannot claim that freezing for hours is an improvement over waterboarding for seconds. There is no difference between their policies.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
5-75. If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to:
[...]
•Waterboarding.
•Using military working dogs.
•Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
•Conducting mock executions.
• Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.
colonelmatterson 2 years ago
Plus Obama still supports rendition. I'm sorry to intrude on your little fantasy, but the rest of us have to live in the real world. Deal with it.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
And Bush fought against the aspects of the bill that would have opened interrogators up to lawsuits for actions that had already been committed. Bush openly called for Congress' assistance in defining and regulating interrogation. In fact, he was widely criticized for doing so. If you're going to continue to spread your opinion around, at least have the decency to include accurate information.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
This is another case of fibbing, sadly. The Military Commissions Act was primarily a response to the Hamdan case, and though it's true that Bush lauded one provision that allowed the CIA to continue its classified interrogation techniques, when the Congress clarified that the CIA was not allowed to use techniques outside of the FM, Bush vetoed that. Bush *never* claimed he would comply with the FM. Today, we have a president who claims he will. A big difference.
colonelmatterson 2 years ago
The changes he's made are superficial. He uses the word "torture" to describe the things that he's changed, but that's just a word. Torture has been outlawed for years, but Obama has made a big deal of the word itself, and so he has to make some political overtures to get the positive news coverage. I can't help but notice that you're ignoring rendition, which is pretty obviously open to extreme interrogation and techniques far more disturbing than waterboarding.
TBC
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
This is getting a little old. I take it you concede that the idea you previously got from "reading the FM" that the use of extreme temps was allowed was mistaken. If you don't trust or believe Obama, that's perfectly fine-- you don't have to embellish that opinion with innuendo. On rendition, I haven't seen Obama say anything about it. My view is that Panetta claimed to be for rendition to bolster his credentials to a skeptical Kitt Bond. Nonetheless, the CIA is now bound by the DTA.
colonelmatterson 2 years ago
Leon Panetta testified before the Senate that the administration's policy was to engage in rendition with the assurance that no one would be hurt, which has been our policy since the 90s. But because the CIA is so "bound", "U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role", according to the LA Times. So the big change here is that rather than conduct interrogations ourselves, we hand people over to someone who cares about human rights less.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
I have to admit an error. The new Army FM does specifically exclude the cold-room treatment. I was referencing 34-52, which was replaced in September of 06, in what seems to me to be a complete overreaction. But a fact is a fact, and the FM is incredibly restrictive on allowed techniques. I guess that's why Obama made it clear that a task force would later determine what changes to make when there would not be so much attention and the changes could be made quietly.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
It's similar to our environmental policies, where we pat ourselves on the back for not emitting pollution, but we buy the same products from countries that manufacture them producing more pollution than we would have. Loopholes always get bigger as policies become superficial.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
Fine, but why does Obama have to be so consistently worse where they're different?
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
Here comes another one just like the other one.
dtaijo174 2 years ago 3
is anyone surprised by this?
burnhippiesforfuel 2 years ago 4
im not
Maorawrath 2 years ago 3
clinton torture? surely you jest. he has a d after his last name! he wouldnt do something like that! what ring wing conspiracy member is funding this video?
sincerely,
crazed left wing blogger
nickd4818 2 years ago 4
Obamaniacs are not gonna like this.
abarzilai664 2 years ago 8
They'll just plug their eyes and refuse to listen... they're kinda like the hear no evil; see no evil monkeys... dunno 'bout that speak no evil bit, though they do use fluffy terms like "progressive taxation" rather than "theft", so perhaps I'm wrong.
Oh no, I mentioned monkeys, now Jesse Jackson's coming after me! Aaaugh!
AshillaBeige 2 years ago 2
Meet the new President -- same as the old President.
legendre007 2 years ago 13
They're the same when it comes to wiretapping, interrogation, and detainment, and their foreign policies are somewhat similar, but their domestic agendas couldn't be more different.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
JohnJ2427, What are the differences between their domestic agendas?
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
His economic policies are far more redistributionist. For example, he wants to repeal Bush's signature tax cuts. His judges will overthrow legislatures to enact the unpopular aspects of Obama's radical agenda. His class warfare rhetoric promotes hatred of the productive class. He has no problem forcing taxpayers to pay for experimentation on human embryos and abortions for Africans and Mexicans, and he's far more likely to send taxpayer money to his pet causes than Bush.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago
Bush's domestic fiscal policy was to promise tax cuts, even as he increased domestic government spending, especially in doling out corporate welfare to banks.
Then Obama ran for office saying he hated Bush's economic policies, & would do everything differently, that he'd be the Anti-Bush.
Now President Obama is promising tax cuts, even as he increases domestic government spending, especially in doling out corporate welfare to banks.
How different. :-S
legendre007 2 years ago 4
So much for change you can believe in huh?
chevydriver1123 2 years ago 3
Except for the fact that Bush actually did cut taxes, yeah.
JohnJ2427 2 years ago