+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: The worst civil liberties president in US history?.... (/showthread.php?tid=143896)
The worst civil liberties president in US history?.... - max - 11-04-2012
Worse than Woodrow Wilson.
Worse than Bush?
"As John Jay wrote in Federalist 4, \"absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal\ (that's also why the absurd contortions invoked by President Obama to fight a war in Libya not only in the absence of Congressional approval, but in the face of formal Congressional disapproval, belongs high on the list of his worst and likely most enduring civil liberties assaults). wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/02/obama-civil-liberties-history
I do not have illusions that the "progressive" hypocrites are not going to defend and vote for Obama.....
Re: The worst civil liberties president in US history?.... - Black - 11-04-2012
So, maybe someone on this side knows how long soap keeps?
Re: The worst civil liberties president in US history?.... - max - 11-04-2012
Still not a single fact, not a single argument, eh, howard?
Fascism is OK as long as you do it?....
Re: The worst civil liberties president in US history?.... - michaelb - 11-04-2012
the article is interesting, but does not make the argument or even suggest the answer is Obama. Nor is there any credible claim he could be. the issues faced now are complicated and lack any clear moral, ethical or political answers.
Re: The worst civil liberties president in US history?.... - max - 11-04-2012
Actually it does, it creates two classes of abuse, temporary and permanent.
Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt are given some justification and placed in the first category.
Bush and Obama are placed in the latter, and Obama is rightfully classified as worse than Bush.
You need some serious blinders to avoid direct quotes describing Obama as being on top of the pile...
Re: The worst civil liberties president in US history?.... - Black - 11-04-2012
max wrote:
Still not a single fact, not a single argument, eh, howard?
Fascism is OK as long as you do it?....
shoo fly, go 'way.
Re: The worst civil liberties president in US history?.... - deckeda - 11-04-2012
I read the article, and attendant link regarding the criticism from 2011. The Guardian's author places Obama's action in Libya last year as surpassing those that Bush performed in creating the Iraq war for atrocious behavior.
The two scenarios are not even laughably similar or close in impact to the citizens of those sovereign nations nor to U.S. citizens.
Re: The worst civil liberties president in US history?.... - max - 11-04-2012
Black wrote:
[quote=max]
Still not a single fact, not a single argument, eh, howard?
Fascism is OK as long as you do it?....
shoo fly, go 'way. Still nothing, howard?
If the inconvenient facts bother you so much, why not close your eyes and stick your head into a sandpile.
That is your usual way you see the reality, anyway....
Re: The worst civil liberties president in US history?.... - Chakravartin - 11-04-2012
To use that as an excuse to vote for Romney without being a hypocrite you'd be implicitly assuming that Romney would respect the Constitution and undo the executive power-consolidation done under Bush and Obama.
Frankly, I see that as a very remote possibility.
It's a two party system. Which one is the lesser evil?
Re: The worst civil liberties president in US history?.... - deckeda - 11-04-2012
max wrote:
Actually it does, it creates two classes of abuse, temporary and permanent.
Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt are given some justification and placed in the first category.
Bush and Obama are placed in the latter, and Obama is rightfully classified as worse than Bush.
You need some serious blinders to avoid direct quotes describing Obama as being on top of the pile...
Wrong.
Blinders are what you have when you miss the part where the author additionally concedes that the amount or breadth of the abuse matters as well. That he chose to discount that in his weaksauce conclusion was his choice, it doesn't have to be yours.