Posts: 32,462
Threads: 3,127
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
Chakravartin wrote:
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?
max told us he's voting for someone else, not Romney. Doesn't know or care anything about what Romney might stand for or do, nor apparently if he's elected. Let him in, regardless.
Posts: 4,019
Threads: 29
Joined: Feb 2024
Reputation:
0
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...
You must be referring to some source other than the one you link. I don't see it reach a conclusion at all and ends with a question (it starts with questions and has questions in the middle). It mentions other people who may or may not make that claim, but makes no apparent effort to resolve the question. Is there some actual conclusion in there or quote from this author that I am missing?
How is anything Bush or Obama did worst then owning or condoning slavery? (the article of course includes this unanswered question).
Posts: 11,076
Threads: 820
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation:
0
Chakravartin wrote:
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?
Strawman, a complete straw construct.
A lesser evil is still evil.
You go ahead and vote for evil.
I do not care what Romney is, he was not elected to Change, to dismantle Bush's Police State.
Do you remember Obama's entire platform?
We are not talking one tiny promise that he for got about.
I want the fascist SOB fired.
"And then there are the two War on Terror presidents. George Bush seized on the 9/11 attack to usher in radical new surveillance and detention powers in the PATRIOT ACT, spied for years on the communications of US citizens without the warrants required by law, and claimed the power to indefinitely imprison even US citizens without charges in military brigs.
His successor, Barack Obama, went further by claiming the power not merely to detain citizens without judicial review but to assassinate them (about which the New York Times said: \"It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing\). He has waged an unprecedented war on whistleblowers, dusting off Wilson's Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute more then double the number of whistleblowers than all prior presidents combined. And he has draped his actions with at least as much secrecy, if not more so, than any president in US history. wrote:
The hypocrites like deckeda will vote for the fascist, I know I am nor going to change that.
My conscience is clear, how is yours....
Posts: 32,462
Threads: 3,127
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
His successor, Barack Obama, went further
... and that was the key phrase where everything in his article went off the rails.
It's really freaky how you hate Bush for what he did but hate Obama more because he didn't reverse the course that Bush set to your satisfaction, and yet you can't see how strong a course that originally was.
Realism hasn't been displayed as one of your virtues, so feel free to call me a "hypocrite" or anything else that helps you get through the long, lonely nights.
Posts: 11,076
Threads: 820
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation:
0
deckeda wrote:
His successor, Barack Obama, went further
... and that was the key phrase where everything in his article went off the rails.
.
For you.
You cannot face the direction of the rails, can you?
The inconvenient reality.
Your own flaming hypocrisy...
Posts: 32,462
Threads: 3,127
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
I owe you some thanks for finally finding a link to something that helped explain the various and sundry posts you've splattered here the last couple of days. I still think the article, and therefore you, are out to lunch and will be shown to be holding an exceedingly minority position on that belief but at least I know what the concern is. Best of luck going forward.
Posts: 5,499
Threads: 255
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Despite the good things that Obama has done his record on civil liberties has been abysmal. I hope that he will have the courage to reverse some of the worse excesses in his second term but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Posts: 31,261
Threads: 2,348
Joined: Feb 2025
Spock wrote:
Despite the good things that Obama has done his record on civil liberties has been abysmal. I hope that he will have the courage to reverse some of the worse excesses in his second term but I'm not going to hold my breath.
:agree  everal times over
Posts: 31,261
Threads: 2,348
Joined: Feb 2025
and to add a point: the worst US President with regard to civil liberties was and remains, Abraham Lincoln.
Posts: 11,076
Threads: 820
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation:
0
RgrF wrote:
and to add a point: the worst US President with regard to civil liberties was and remains, Abraham Lincoln.
" Obama is sooooo like Lincoln" spin is not going to work. Total BS.
Lincoln had a real CIVIL war on his hands.
AND any suspension of civil rights was temporary.
At least the idiot Bush had 9/11 as an excuse.
Obama has none, just plain fascism.
For you, an avowed socialist, trying to justify it is plain hypocrisy....
|
