Is Obama Un-American?

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18172
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Fordama »

Brooke wrote: Are you pretending that you don't have a well-worn copy in your back pocket? Figures!
Unlike you, I don't run around cutting and pasting the thoughts of others instead of posting my own thoughts.

Someday, perhaps, you too will have thoughts of your own to post.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK
User avatar
Troglodyte
Posts: 16607
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Troglodyte »

John Q. Public wrote: I'm just going by what they themselves say, not by any slant the media has put on it. They want to cut Social Security but not their Social Security. They want to cut Medicare but not their Medicare. They want to cut taxes but they think the amount they pay is fair. They think that politicians are all crooks but their guy is alright. They hate "Obamacare" but surveys have shown that they actually support it. They want clean air and water but oppose restrictions on polluters. Name any issue and I bet they'll contradict themselves on it.
Social Security should have been left as an independant agency which the politicians couldn't raid. LBJ destroyed that.
MediCare was for emergency treatment for the truely indigent, not an alternative health insurance for anyone who asks for it.
The GOP doesn't want to cut taxes, they just don't want them raised for anybody. The war cry is don't stop Bush's tax cuts, not more cuts.
Obamacare is another extention of 5 failed health programs, all already bankrupt without more tax money, and full of waste, fraud and mismanagement. Clean those up first, or eliminate them, before adding another disaster. People support some of the ideas Obamacare raised, but not the progam as it becomes clearer, methods used, or the obscene costs.
I don't suffer from any mental illnesses.. I enjoy them..
User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Brooke »

Fordama wrote: Unlike you, I don't run around cutting and pasting the thoughts of others instead of posting my own thoughts.

Someday, perhaps, you too will have thoughts of your own to post.

Fordama
I post the writings of others for a variety of reasons. Often because they back up what I believe and sometimes as fodder for discussions. This is both. You should try it sometime, it might help you to find your way easier when you are stuck and can't figure out what the topic is about.

As for now, I can help get you on track. Just read past the sentence you are making such a big fuss about. Oh wait, I can't trust you to do that can I? OK, here it is. Please read it and use it to help you move on. Bolton actually spells out in plain English what he is talking about.
The most visible, immediate impact of President Obama's fascination with international law appears in the global war against terrorism, a term he tries to avoid. Instead, he adopted the view widely held in Europe and among legal theorists that terrorist threats and attacks should be treated under the criminal law enforcement paradigm, rather than as attacks on America subject to the law of war. The question is whether we treat terrorists simply as bank robbers on steroids or as national security threats to which we should respond in legitimate self-defense. The Obama administration strongly supports the criminal law paradigm, which most Americans emphatically reject.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?
User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Vilepagan »

Brooke wrote:Bolton actually spells out in plain English what he is talking about.
The most visible, immediate impact of President Obama's fascination with international law appears in the global war against terrorism, a term he tries to avoid. Instead, he adopted the view widely held in Europe and among legal theorists that terrorist threats and attacks should be treated under the criminal law enforcement paradigm, rather than as attacks on America subject to the law of war. The question is whether we treat terrorists simply as bank robbers on steroids or as national security threats to which we should respond in legitimate self-defense. The Obama administration strongly supports the criminal law paradigm, which most Americans emphatically reject.
Indeed, and most people have understood his statement and rightfully called him an idiot, in plain English, for his stated idiocy.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada
User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Brooke »

Vilepagan wrote:
Indeed, and most people have understood his statement and rightfully called him an idiot, in plain English, for his stated idiocy.
Please be more specific; who are you talking about? Bolton or Obama? Who are most people? What idiocy?
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?
User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Vilepagan »

Brooke wrote:Please be more specific; who are you talking about? Bolton or Obama?
Bolton.
Who are most people?
The people in this thread.
What idiocy?
His assertion that terrorists shouldn't be treated like criminals.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada
User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Brooke »

Vilepagan wrote:
Bolton.



The people in this thread.



His assertion that terrorists shouldn't be treated like criminals.
Go on.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?
User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Brooke »

Vile,

Just in case you don't know where to go, here are two more paragraphs that will help you to move on.
Thus, reflecting the law-enforcement approach, Obama rapidly ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility and either the release of those still detained or their transfer to the United States. He also pushed to abandon "enhanced interrogation" techniques and insisted upon trying as many terrorists as possible in civilian courts, under ordinary criminal law procedures rather than in military tribunals. This mindset's strong ideological roots reflect the administration's fundamental acceptance of leftist conventional wisdom on international law. Under this view, for Obama, closing Gitmo is not just good policy but, more importantly, "norms" America with international opinion on handling terrorists.

Why we should defer to international norms on terrorism is, to say the least, unclear. The U.N. has repeatedly tried and failed to reach a comprehensive definition of terrorism. Its continuing inability to agree on something so fundamental helps explain why the U.N., particularly the Security Council, has been AWOL in the war on terrorism, and why international norms should not dissuade us even slightly from legitimate self-defense efforts.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?
User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18172
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Fordama »

Brooke wrote: Go on.
If you don't understand what you're posting about then you shouldn't be jumping on the ideas of others.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK
User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Brooke »

Fordama wrote: If you don't understand what you're posting about then you shouldn't be jumping on the ideas of others.

Fordama
Why don't you put on your big boy pants and try to hold up your end of the discussion so that at the very least readers know what you are talking about?
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?
User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18172
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Fordama »

Brooke wrote: Why don't you put on your big boy pants and try to hold up your end of the discussion so that at the very least readers know what you are talking about?
Already did in my first post.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK
User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by GOODave »

Fordama wrote: Already did in my first post.

Fordama
Kinda curious as to just what is her fascination with your pants...

:shrug:
User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18172
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Fordama »

GOODave wrote: Kinda curious as to just what is her fascination with your pants...

:shrug:
Chicks dig me, because I rarely wear underwear and when I do it's usually something unusual.


Image
Last edited by Fordama on Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK
User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Vilepagan »

Brooke wrote:Go on.
No, really.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada
User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Vilepagan »

Brooke wrote:Vile,

Just in case you don't know where to go...
Thanks Brooke, but I'm not conflicted about this issue, nor do I need Mr. Bolton's input. He's not saying anything new here, he's merely restating Bush's incorrect policy regarding how to deal with terrorists.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada
User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Brooke »

Vilepagan wrote:
Thanks Brooke, but I'm not conflicted about this issue, nor do I need Mr. Bolton's input. He's not saying anything new here, he's merely restating Bush's incorrect policy regarding how to deal with terrorists.
Do you mean that you think they should not be tried in military court?
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?
OldMan
Posts: 579
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by OldMan »

John Q. Public wrote: I'm just going by what they themselves say, not by any slant the media has put on it. They want to cut Social Security but not their Social Security. They want to cut Medicare but not their Medicare. They want to cut taxes but they think the amount they pay is fair. They think that politicians are all crooks but their guy is alright. They hate "Obamacare" but surveys have shown that they actually support it. They want clean air and water but oppose restrictions on polluters. Name any issue and I bet they'll contradict themselves on it.
I beg to differ JQP. The Tea Party is a loose coalition of people whose single premise is that the federal government is spending too much money. By definition it does not extend to clean air. While certain "Tea Partiers" may have their own views about "their guy", clean air or Obamacare, the movement itself is about out-of-control spending. The influence of the movement certainly affected the 2010 elections, and as you know the old guard Republicans were caught by surprise as well as the Dems. For some reason many of the Republicans and nearly all Democrats label the Tea Party movement as extreme. Why is it that wanting to balance the budget is extreme? Only in an environment where excessive debt is the order of the day would a movement based upon saving money be labeled extreme. That is truly where we are however.

I have not heard anything to suggest that some people believe that "their" Social Security is ok but "yours" is not. The plain fact is that the government made financial "promises" (political promises, not contractual) to people that cannot be met. Can you point to a reference where someone made such a comment? I am not calling you out, I would be interested in reading that argument.

When Social Security was enacted, the average life expentancy was about 60 years or so. It was meant to be old age insurance, since it kicked in at the age where few people could be expected to work any longer and many would have already passed. As the average life expentancy is now closer to 80, Social Security has become de facto more of a retirement plan than insurance against an inability to work. By offering a fixed payment every month, Social Security is a defined benefit plan. As private (corporate) defined benefit pension plans evolved from roughly the 50s/60s up until the 90s, there began to be problems in the way they were administered. These plans were funded/calculated based upon assumptions of life expectancy and rate of return on investment of the funding for the plan, usually in too optimistic fashion, and early on in their history the liability for the future promises was not even recorded on the books (just like Social Security!).

As people lived longer many of these plans melted down (that is, the funding was insufficient due to increasing length of life and lower than predicted investment returns), and as a result few if any corporations now offer defined benefit plans. With 80 million baby boomers reaching retirement age, Social Security and Medicare will melt down as well unless altered. Estimates of the long term liablity are north of $100 trillion. Even if they are less than that, the obligation is overwhelming. No amount of tax increase is going to save them without reducing benefits somehow.

There is nothing new in this scenario either, as the problem has been out for discussion for 10-20 years. However it was always easier for politicians to only worry about the next election, instead of the next generation (Bush hinted at Social Security reform but got shot down). You could say too that voters were equally weak. Now, like him or not, Paul Ryan is the first politician to put a possible solution on the table, and he has verbally acknowledged that doing so might be political suicide. Do you all agree or disagree with his proposal? If you disagree, what do you propose as a realistic alternative?

We currently have $14.3 trillion in debt or 100% of GDP. Deficits of $1.5-$2 trillion per year will get us to 150-160% debt to GDP in 3-5 years, roughly the level of Greece. Remember they had rioting in the streets over possible cuts to their social benefits. Hopefully we will be able to look at our situation in a more mature way but I am not sure why to expect that. In any event we face a big problem. If we don't get serious about restructuring now there will be hell to pay, like an extra $1 trillion a year or so in interest on the debt. If anyone will lend it to us.
User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Vilepagan »

Brooke wrote:Do you mean that you think they should not be tried in military court?
Yes.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada
User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Brooke »

Vilepagan wrote:
Yes.
I would love to hear your reasoning on this one. But, I'll bet you are too chicken.

Besides the Obama administration finally announced (on the same day as the president announced the first day of his re-election campaign) that the terrorists will be tried before a military tribunal.

Didn't you see Eric Holder's announcement? He was very upset that he cannot have his way. Considering the fact that Holder's preference to try them in front of a criminal court would have made the likelihood that key evidence against them would have been tossed out should make everyone in this country wonder why Holder is the Attorney General. He should be replaced.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?
User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Is Obama Un-American?

Post by Vilepagan »

Brooke wrote:I would love to hear your reasoning on this one. But, I'll bet you are too chicken.
Afraid to answer a question from you? Perish the thought.

Terrorists should be treated like criminals because that's what they are, and that's the way we always treated them in the past. To declare them "enemy combatants" ennobles them. It takes their thuggery and elevates it to the conduct of a patriot. Such labels have the effect of making it easier for the terrorists to engender sympathy among like-minded people and get more recruits to their cause. Such labels make it more difficult to acquire intelligence and gain the cooperation of foreign governments. Treating the terrorists as enemy combatants makes the US appear heavy-handed, arrogant, and above the law. It also makes us appear arbitrary, since we've tried terrorists as criminals in civilian courts since 9/11.
Besides the Obama administration finally announced (on the same day as the president announced the first day of his re-election campaign) that the terrorists will be tried before a military tribunal.
One more thing I don't agree with Obama about.
Didn't you see Eric Holder's announcement? He was very upset that he cannot have his way. Considering the fact that Holder's preference to try them in front of a criminal court would have made the likelihood that key evidence against them would have been tossed out should make everyone in this country wonder why Holder is the Attorney General. He should be replaced.
Yeah, he wanted to follow the "rule of law" and you think he should be sacked for it...why am I not surprised?
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada
Post Reply