Hello:

Look. I LIKE Obama, but he's acting MORE and MORE like G.W. Bush every day.

In the FIRST place, he thinks he can start a war on his own and doesn't have to answer to anybody... (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2) Actually, at least Bush got somewhat of a congressional approval. Obama just changes the definition of war - kind of like Bush changed the definition of torture... But, I digress..

In the SECOND place, for an administration who said it was going to be transparent, he's viciously going after leakers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/us/politics/18leak.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2), and I mean viciously.

THIRDLY, even though he smoked pot and used cocaine, when a former president came out against the Global Drug War (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17carter.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212), Obama said no thanks.

Having said that, he's still better than ANY Republican candidate so far..

excon

I don't think so. Especially for all of the items you just named.

I don't think so. Especially for all of the items you just named.Hello Dr:

Welcome to the battle...

Agreed. Obama IS Bush light... However, the Republicans are Bush on STEROIDS.

excon

Catchy title there Ex, look, from a distant perspective, he can do no wrong right now, he has had the good luck to win the war on terror by eliminating OBL, that should be good for reelection. Even though he started the war on Libya, he has had the good sense to pull back and let the number two team play. What he obviously hasn't done is solve the employment problem. That is systemic and will take some real pain. Your republicans are working very hard to make sure they don't look like BO, but do you really have much choice?

I'm neither democrat or Republican, but I am tired of all the crap up there in congress. Both sides are responsible for the financial mess we are in and neither side can pull their heads out of their *** to fix the problem. I live on social security after paying into program for over sixty years and I'm afraid that it will stop sooner than later leaving me and others high and dry. Bush did nothing to help and neither has Obama. But congress has sure taken care of themselves.

I just hope the next election is about the peoples business, not BIG business. Been looking up who contributes to who, and that explains a lot about policy. Personally, the Republican field more than sucks so bad, the Dem's are looking really good, even if they can't really deliver, but as long as they don't take away, hey it's a small hope.

I think Obama can run on the Rep ticket and free up the democratic one for Hilary

The biggest problem with Obama is the lack of experience that he had going into office. Many of the campaign promises that were made went out the window when they pulled back the curten on day 1. His reality changed. Ever since then he has taken on a sullen attitude for the people. He keeps making one bad decision after another and yet he isn't really being called on it. Bush was hounded almost hourly for anything he had done right or wrong. Obama thinks he is a star in his own world. But he's living in a glass house and the people can see in. Throwing parties and jetsetting around the world while not giving a hoot about what is happening domestically to this country and all the while bypassing as much as he can. Its not looking good for him at the moment and I don't think he will be re-elected if there is a decent candidate running against him. Personally he is the worst president I have seen in my lifetime. That is saying a lot as Jimmy Carter was at the top of the list before him.

The problem with the presidentcy is that each encumbent becomes a little tin god on oiled wheels. The person is expected to bring instant change as if he has no restrictions on what he can do. In fact everything he does is held up to scrutiny, and every fault is found.

You forgot one. His administration authorized the transfer of at least 1750 automatic weapons to the Mexican drug cartels... enough to arm 2 batallions of narco-terrorists .

Iran-Contra almost brought down the Reagan Adm.with it's numerous Committee hearings ,investigations, special prosecutors, grand juries and months of round the clock coverage.

This 'Gunwalker' Scandal("Operation Fast and Furious") is far worse but has yet to dent the dinosaur media in any meaningful way despite the fact that Congressional hearings are ongoing ,and a convincing 51 page report has been published .
http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/ATF_Report.pdf

“DOJ and ATF inappropriately and recklessly relied on a 20-year-old ATF Order to allow guns to walk.” The agencies misrepresented the intention of the order to justify their actions.

“Supervisors told the agents to 'get with the program' because senior ATF officials had sanctioned the operation.” At least one agent was cautioned that if he didn't stop complaining about the dangerous nature of the operation, he would find himself out of a job, and lucky to be working in a prison.

“Operation Fast and Furious contributed to the increasing violence and deaths in Mexico. This result was regarded with giddy optimism by ATF supervisors hoping that guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico would provide the nexus to straw purchasers in Phoenix.” ATF officials were seemingly unconcerned over the deaths of Mexican law enforcement officers, soldiers, and innocent civilians, noting that you had to “scramble a few eggs” to make an omelette, in a callous disregard of human life.

Senior ATF personnel including Acting Director Ken Melson, and senior Department of Justice officials at least up to an assistant attorney general, were well aware of and supported the operation.

Department of Justice officials hid behind semantics to lie and deny that they allowed guns to be walked across the border.

When asked by the Oversight Committee how many of 1,750 specific weapons that “walked” under orders of the ATF and DOJ could have been interdicted if agents were allowed to act as they were trained, the agents answered they could have stopped every single one.

The Obots are playing hardball coverup . What did Holder know ;and when did he know it ? What did the President know ,and when did he know it ?

To date ,countless Mexicans have fallen to these weapons (perhaps some American civilians also as the guns have been used on both sides of the border) ;150 Mexican law enforcment officers ,and US Border Patrol Agent , Brian Terry ,have also fallen to these weapons.

The administration has tried to make the case that weapons from the US has made the situation South of the border more deadly . Little did we know that was true because it was the American government was supplying the weapons to the cartels .


Obama told Sarah Brady that he was working on gun control 'under the radar' .Obama under fire for eyeing gun control 'under the radar' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392132/Obama-eyeing-gun-control-radar.html)
Now we know what he meant.Gunwalker was designed to be a Reichstag fire moment.

So tom when has the US ever been concerned about casualties in other places, I could believe almost anything of the US administration

Hello again, tom:

I read about that fiasco... But, that kind of stuff, just like Iran/Contra before it, was INSPIRED by the drug war. Reagan didn't mind distributing cocaine and guns as long as it met HIS political agenda, and Obama doesn't mind distributing guns to the narco's for some un-determined reason.

But, the umbrella for BOTH of these aberrations is the failed drug war...

excon

Hello again, tom:

I read about that fiasco.... But, that kinda stuff, just like Iran/Contra before it, was INSPIRED by the drug war. Reagan didn't mind distributing cocaine and guns as long as it met HIS political agenda, and Obama doesn't mind distributing guns to the narco's for some un-determined reason.

But, the umbrella for BOTH of these aberrations is the failed drug war...

excon

Ex I don't know how you can use the word "inspired" and the war on drugs in the same context. From my perspective the war on drugs is hardly inspirational. Should BO or any other leader seek to justify illegal actions on the basis that there is a higher agenda in operation, such situational ethics is a bankrupt philosophy and demonstares the dearth in leadership. The distribution of weapons to the drug cartels is an act of war against the Mexican people, but what's a few mex's among friends? Just a few less crossing the border.

How is it you can support such a bankrupt administration? Make no mistake, the leader must take responsibility but the acts are those of his lieutenants who remain in office long after he has gone.

How is it you can support such a bankrupt administration? Hello again, clete:

Um, uhh, I think the thrust of my post is that my support for him is lagging...

excon

Hello again, clete:

Um, uhh, I think the thrust of my post is that my support for him is lagging...

excon

I hope it is so Ex and I don't find support in another post. The truth is BO talks well but he comes up short when it comes to execution. That may be the quality of what he has to work with, or it may just mean he is part of the machine

Obama doesn't care about the "war on drugs" or if his activities undermines a friendly government . (I think he finds that aspect a bonus)

As I stated ;the true goal of this operation was for him to undermine 2nd amendment rights.
He is hell bent on dragging the US into UN compliance with the small arms treaty they plan on adopting this summer .

He told Sarah Brady that he was working under the radar to get it done. Now we know how .

As I stated ;the true goal of this operation was for him to undermine 2nd amendment rights. .Hello again, tom:

Obama is willing to undermine your 4th Amendment rights... He, like Bush before him, thinks the 5th Amendment sucks bigtime... He's not much into the 8th or 10th Amendments, agreed... But, he has NEVER uttered a word, or DONE a thing about the 2nd Amendment. You're making it up.

I don't know where you guys get this stuff. In fact, the right wing should LOVE this guy. He's started more wars than Bush did, and wants to occupy the ENTIRE middle east... That should give you guys a boner!

excon

I'm making it up ? Sarah Brady said that ;not me.

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.


“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” Over a barrel? Meet White House gun policy adviser Steve Croley - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-white-house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story.html)

It's also a fact that Evita in 2009 reversed US objections to a UN Small arms treaty .

But, he has NEVER uttered a word, or DONE a thing about the 2nd Amendment. You're making it up.

I dunno where you guys get this stuff.

We've already had a thread (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/gun-control-fiat-578210.html) on this. I didn't make it up.

He told Sarah Brady that he was working under the radar to get it done. Hello again, Steve/tom,

To me, "we're working under the radar", means get out of my office, biatch...

To you, it means you should buy MORE guns because he's coming for 'em.

excon

"Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say."

Hence the gun control by fiat title.

Hence the gun control by fiat title.Hello again, Steve:

There's PLENTY to be pissed about based on what he's actually DOING - not what you THINK he's going to do.

excon

There's PLENTY to be pissed about based on what he's actually DOING - not what you THINK he's gonna do.

So, trying to prevent him from screwing up my rights isn't important?

Easy to blame one guy when there are 535 other policy makers, and 9 more to referee, that make policy also. That's the way it is, especially when money is tight, and you ain't getting in on it. The US is hardly bankrupt, but the fear of whatever has everybody running around repeating exaggerated talking points, of gloom, and doom. The right wants to go back to the way it was, and the left wants to move into the way it should be so while I have my own conflicts with this president, and his administration, I also know that changing generations of thinking can be easier said than done.

Getting beyond your own fear, and recognizing that adjustment have to be made, in many areas, would go a long way in identifying, and implementing those adjustments. And that goes beyond worrying about how many guns you get to buy at a gun show, to add to your collection.

When you talk about YOUR gun rights, what about my right to not get shot by anyone's guns? Hey can't we have a reasonable policy that protects everyone from abuses of your second amendment rights? Like prove you aren't a criminal, or a crazy??

Not everyone who buys or sells a gun is a criminal. Not everyone is a responsible citizen either. Its funny how the gun crowd has always been scared craplesss waiting for them to come get their guns, and nobody, not especially not this administration has shown up demanding anything but common sense from you.

The real issue is manifest in a segment of the American population not being able to give credit for what HAS been accomplished, and building on it, yet just seeing only their own scaredy cat FEARS about what they THINK will happen.

I don't mind at all you having as many guns as you want STEVE, but that nut across the street, I mind that a lot. If he ain't certified crazy, he sure is headed that way. His second amendment rights, I would take away with no hesitation. Can't believe you would have a problem with that.

Hello again, clete:

Um, uhh, I think the thrust of my post is that my support for him is lagging...

excon

I know someone who wants him re-elected
Medvedev says wants to see Obama re-elected - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110619/pl_afp/russiauspoliticsdiplomacy_20110619214245)

I shudder to think of 4 more years of Obama. All I can see so far, is business as usual. I wish there was some we could flush the toilet and rid ourselves of all the crap in DC.

Tal, I don't want the nut across the street to have one either and I darn sure don't want ATF letting AK's "walk." (http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/18/atf-fast-furious-worse-than-a-nightmare/)

There was a special prosecutor for Iran-Contra .14 people were charged with criminal offenses .Among them were high ranking cabinet members like Defense Sec. Cap Weinberger ,National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane,and Assistant Sec State Elliot Abrams .

I wonder how many Obots like Holder are going down ?

They got pardons back then, they will get pardons now. And we still will never know when the president knew what.

Interesting how the debates get back to gun limitation, which incidentally isn't a bad thing. If you want to reserve your rights why not limit each person to the possession of one weapon, duly licensed and adequately and securely housed, instead of the free for all you now have

The National Rifle Association is a powerful, anti gun control lobby. Many believe that a right to bear arms holds no limit.

So do I frankly, but it's the loonies, and criminals who should have to rights. Steve was referring to a problem we are having with the Mexican drug cartels getting guns from America. It's a problem for sure, but the majority of the weapons come from over seas via South America.

Interesting how the debates get back to gun limitation, which incidently isn't a bad thing. If you want to reserve your rights why not limit each person to the possession of one weapon, duly licensed and adequately and securely housed, instead of the free for all you now have

So what your saying is that you want the government in your home to inspect it for safety reasons and as far as the 1 gun is that choice going to be yours or the one the government says you can have ?

So what your saying is that you want the government in your home to inspect it for safety reasons Hello again, dad:

You're not playing the small government card, are you?? Nahhh. You wouldn't... That's because you don't mind a LARGE HUMONGOUS, very intrusive government, as long as it meets YOUR particular social agenda...

To wit: since the recent Republican takeover of the states, instead of working on JOBS, they enacted some of the most restrictive abortion laws since Roe v Wade... I'll bet you're just FINE with that, aren't you?

So, while you decry the government in your HOME, you absolutely WANT government in the doctors office making SURE that what happens is what the GOVERNMENT wants to happen...

Let's talk about that for a minute.

excon

Hello again, dad:

You're not playing the small government card, are you??? Nahhh. You wouldn't... That's because you don't mind a LARGE HUMONGOUS, very intrusive government, as long as it meets YOUR particular social agenda...

To wit: since the recent Republican takeover of the states, instead of working on JOBS, they enacted some of the most restrictive abortion laws since Roe v Wade... I'll bet you're just FINE with that, aren't you?

So, while you decry the government in your HOME, you absolutely WANT government in the doctors office making SURE that what happens is what the GOVERNMENT wants to happen...

Let's talk about that for a minute.

excon

I thought we already hashed out ObamaCare? And my forcefullness in the 2nd amendment stems from the fact that that amendment alone is what protects all the others. We don't need a California style nor Chicago style gun laws to keep people from owning guns. Im not against checks and balances in the system but I am against the intrusion beyond normal reason. In some coutries they actually issue every citizen a rifle so they may muster a national army if needed. What a concept. You will never keep guns nor other weapons from reaching criminals hands. But Im sure the criminal always has it in mind if he chooses to rob someone if it's a gun carrying state or not. Somehow they don't seem to like assuming room temprature. Keeping the guns from those that are allowed to own them is a hotly debated issue. In the end We the People should prevail.

In case this wasn't posted anywhere.

Obama Eyeing Anti-Gun Backer to Run ATF (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Obama-NRF-AndrewTraver-KennethMelson/2011/06/20/id/400723)

So what your saying is that you want the government in your home to inspect it for safety reasons and as far as the 1 gun is that choice going to be yours or the one the government says you can have ?

Not at all, people only do what they have to, obviously that gun shouldn't be a military assault rifle or a machine gun, the alternative is that guns could be housed in an armory. The swiss for example have even had military weapons on issue to militia housed in a persons home for years and they don't have the gun problems the US has because of the level of responsibility expected. It is about getting an effective message into the community, not forced entry on any excuse.

The gun should be safely housed to prevent theft and children getting hold of the weapon. When I was a child I picked up my uncle's hand gun and pointed it at another child, obviously he was careless. When my son was a teen he stole rifles from a neighbour and went on a rampage. Neither event could have happened if the weapons were securely housed.

Responsibility and the safe use of guns, what a novel idea, but totally un-American.

Responsibility and the safe use of guns, what a novel idea, but totally un-American.

There in lies the problem, apparently it is all-american to be stupid

There in lies the problem, apparently it is all-american to be stupid

Not exactly. When the libs took over the schools and decided to experiment with our school children then all good sense went out the window. They used to teach those things in school and if you did bring a gun you most likely were involved with R.O.T.C. program. (introduction to military). Gun education and hunter education was taught to all children to respect a gun. Its not happening enymore but sorely needs to be.

Not exactly. When the libs took over the schools and decided to experiment with our school children then all good sense went out the window. They used to teach those things in school and if you did bring a gun you most likely were involved with R.O.T.C. program. (introduction to military). Gun education and hunter education was taught to all children to respect a gun. Its not happening enymore but sorely needs to be.

So it's back to politics and the Democrats are to blame. Look I had three years in school in what you would call ROTC and it didn't do me any harm, should be compulsory. I expect you would see that as some sort of unfringement of the rights of the child, or teaching a gang-banger to shoot.

I was being sarcastic, but gun owners don't allow for change, any change, that goes against their right to bear arms, as many as they want, whatever kind they want. And just to correct you, while Americans can be stupid, and do stupid things, was your relative stupid, or a Canadian, oh I know he was American right?


When the libs took over the schools and decided to experiment with our school children then all good sense went out the window. They used to teach those things in school and if you did bring a gun you most likely were involved with R.O.T.C. program. (introduction to military). Gun education and hunter education was taught to all children to respect a gun. Its not happening anymore but sorely needs to be.

Guns are banned in every high school in America from what I understand and ROTC goes to reserve bases and shooting ranges to learn about guns. That's not a liberal thang, its public safety. What you teach your kids at home is your thing to do. No telling what they teach kids in the isolated rural backwoods. I thought you were from the city? Hard to believe they actually have an armory at the high schools around you. Or could you be way older than I thought?

I was being sarcastic, but gun owners don't allow for change, any change, that goes against their right to bear arms, as many as they want, whatever kind they want. And just to correct you, while Americans can be stupid, and do stupid things, was your relative stupid, or a Canadian, oh I know he was American right?



Guns are banned in every high school in America from what I understand and ROTC goes to reserve bases and shooting ranges to learn about guns. Thats not a liberal thang, its public safety. What you teach your kids at home is your thing to do. No telling what they teach kids in the isolated rural backwoods. I thought you were from the city? Hard to believe they actually have an armory at the high schools around you. Or could you be way older than I thought?

Im sure Im way older then you thought :)

Back when I was in school the big experiment at the time was the Evelyn Wood speed reading program. It was mandatory to take it back then. It's the hunters safety classes that have been dropping off from the schools and that was one where you didn't have to handle a weapon but at least you gained knowlage in the ways to respect a gun. Responsible gun owners do accept some changes and the fully automatic weapons available to the general public are very expensive as it takes a class 3 ffl to get one and you have to apply for one before you can purchase which will include signing off by your local police chief before it goes off to the ATF for approval for your tax stamp. Very expensive.

No telling what they teach kids in the isolated rural backwoods. I thought you were from the city? Hard to believe they actually have an armory at the high schools around you. Or could you be way older than I thought?

I live in the mountains in a university town, hardly the back woods although I did pioneer a rural property some years ago. I could be older than you thought.

I was part of a military cadet unit in high school and, yes, they had an armory complete with rifles, mortars, machine guns and their own small bore firing range right in the middle of a city. Ammunition was, of course, in short supply. You don't teach kids rifle drill without using the real thing. Those were different days when every youth could expect to spend some time in the military. I hear they even let girls into these units now.

In our "backwoods" kids are taught about guns at an early age and taught to respect them after all you never know when that snake might need dealing with, and you don't want to blow your own foot off, but the days of hunting with a rifle whenever you feel like it are gone. Just not the done thing to walk to the edge of town with a gun in your hand any more. No licence, no gun, no discharging a firearm within a certain distance of any dwelling

Hello again, dad:

You're not playing the small government card, are you??? Nahhh. You wouldn't... That's because you don't mind a LARGE HUMONGOUS, very intrusive government, as long as it meets YOUR particular social agenda...

To wit: since the recent Republican takeover of the states, instead of working on JOBS, they enacted some of the most restrictive abortion laws since Roe v Wade... I'll bet you're just FINE with that, aren't you?

So, while you decry the government in your HOME, you absolutely WANT government in the doctors office making SURE that what happens is what the GOVERNMENT wants to happen...

Let's talk about that for a minute.

excon

One is to protect a plain language Constitutional right going back to the founding .(the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed) The other is a fabricated right ,hewn from the mangling of the English language ,by an activists court ,for someone to snuff out the life of a baby .(The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
[Griswold v. Connecticut] )

You see here Tom you have the ultimate dilemma. A sacrosanct document which confers certain rights and a State which wishes to curb the citizens exubrant use of them. You have abbreviated the amendment and so taken it out of context.

A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Romans had a way around the problem they confired citizenship on few. The question is does your constitution confer these rights only on citizens and who are those citizens. You behave over there as if these rights exist for all residents or all people. If so the confiscation of arms by your troops in Iraq or Afghanistan would be illegal, so avoid a literal reading to uphold your situational ethics. The context is obviously speaking of responsible citizens and of an organised militia or military force which is spoken of in other parts of the constitution. The legislators of the day contemplated a situation as exists in Switzerland today but has long passed in the US. The problem with these amendments is they have not been slotted into the appropriate passage so as to be read in context.

The words well regulated are forgotten when referring to these rights and yet they are just as important as the word infringed

We don't have to go so far back to Romans. All we have to do is understand "militia " the way the founders did. "Well regulated" was simply one that was "well equipped" and organized.It had nothing to do with the concept of a state organized standing army or reserves. It was independent of the state.


"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress


"that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #29)

"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." George Mason

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic... ”
Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington

I think Washington's statement is the most profound, He talks of a status of independence. Taken to it's ultimate extreme that's anarchy, which it seems to me exists in some parts of your land. Did he contemplate every citizen maintaining his independence from every other citizen or every citizen being able to assist a fledgling nation maintain its independence from cohersive forces. Washington contemplated an internal insurrection, he knew well the nature of those around him, and yet the very constitution we are discussing gives government the right to use the militia to put down such an insurrection.

Irrespective, the right to bear arms exists in the context of military action but taken to excess it is an invitation to anarchy.

I think Washington's statement is the most profound, He talks of a status of independence. Taken to it's ultimate extreme that's anarchy.

Don't be ridiculous, we're not anarchists, Clete. The rights and freedoms guaranteed by our constitution are ties that bind, and we will stand together against our own government if they attempt to abuse those rights. That's not anarchy.

Hello again,

In reference to outrage number #2 above, Jim Risen, a NY Times reporter, is being FORCED (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/) by Obama to reveal his sources because they don't like a story he did during the Bush years... That's because Obama wants to instill a CLIMATE of FEAR among journalists and whilstelblowers that they better CLAM up...

While others rant on about Obama and babies, YOUR rights are disappearing... Obama is Bush on STEROIDS!

excon

While others rant on about Obama and babies, YOUR rights are disappearing... Obama is Bush on STEROIDS!

Dude, we've discussed Obama's assault on our rights many times. The baby thread was meant to satisfy another user here.

Hello again,

Referring to outrage number #3 above, let me ask you about this...

You know that 5 hour energy drink?? You know, the one where the girl holds up a bottle and declares, "it makes me a BETTER me"...

What is the difference between THAT drug and say, Dexedrine?? Isn't a "better me" just another way of saying "I'm high"??

excon

I don't know about you, but when I did amphetamines I was high. When I take vitamins and caffeine I'm just awake.

Just thought you'd like to know that wiretaps were up 34% in 2010 (http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/08/government-wiretaps-increase-by-34-percent-in-2010/), with California, New York and New Jersey leading the way. Interesting also how much federal wiretaps have risen since 2008:

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/wiretap-overall.jpg

As Glenn Reynolds says, they told me if I voted for John McCain, Big Brother would be snooping more and more — and they were right!

So you must be happy then?

Interesting also how much federal wiretaps have risen since 2008Hello again, Steve:

Not interesting to me. Obama is Bush on STEROIDS!! I think I've said that before...

By the way, do you remember early on, when he said that he wasn't going to let the DEA bust medical marijuana clinics in those states where it was approved... Uhhh, that was a LIE, too. Obama is Bush on STEROIDS!

excon

So you must be happy then?

How would my reporting this news equal me being happy about it?

How would my reporting this news equal me being happy about it?Hello again, Steve:

Are you telling us that the surveillance state ISN'T something the right wing adores? Well, IF you are, we AIN'T buying.

excon

How would my reporting this news equal me being happy about it?
Because it stops terrorism.

Are you telling us that the surveillance state ISN'T something the right wing adores?? Well, IF you are, we AIN'T buying.

Why would we adore a "surveillance state?" For a change, why not be honest with people here about the things we have said and the positions we've taken instead of leading others to believe things never said or even implied?

Because it stops terrorism.

Try not to assume so much.

Terrorism wasn't even among the reasons listed for wiretaps. 84 percent (2,675) of those wiretaps "cited illegal drugs as the most serious offense under investigation," followed by homicide at 5 percent and racketeering at less than 4 percent.

instead of leading others to believe things never said or even implied?Hello again, Steve:

Well, of course, you don't like it when they bust down your door. THAT part of the Fourth Amendment you're cool with. But, when it comes to the surveillance state, all I've heard from you is (1) they're not listening to me, or (2) if they are, they're not interested.

That doesn't sound, to me, like you're too outraged about it - certainly not like you are about your front door. If I'm implying incorrectly, straighten me out.

excon

The only thing I have defended that has you in a tizzy is monitoring possible terrorist communications originating from overseas. From that one thing you surmise I don't care about your rights - against all other evidence.

From that one thing you surmise I don't care about your rights Hello again, Steve:

Uh, huh!

excon

Are you getting calls from terrorists overseas?

What should we do about home grown terrorists??

Are you getting calls from terrorists overseas?Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I get it. You TRUST 'em! Doesn't sound very right wing of you... Oh yeah, that's right. These are the COP parts of government that gives you guys thrills up your legs.

excon

Are you getting calls from terrorists overseas?But the wiretaps have little to do with terrorism.

What should we do about home grown terrorists???

Kill 'em all.

But the wiretaps have little to do with terrorism.

Yeah, so? I addressed you both appropriately.

Oh, I get it. You TRUST 'em!! Doesn't sound very right wing of you... Oh yeah, that's right. These are the COP parts of government that gives you guys thrills up your legs.

Again, try for a change being honest about my position instead of misleading others about it. I would imagine we both get thrills up our leg from the same thing(s) and that doesn't include cops or Obama. Unless maybe it's one hot lady cop.

Yeah, so? I addressed you both appropriately.Kill 'em all?

Excuse me, Kill 'em all.

Better?

So that means don't kill them all? Why speak in parables?

You have to find 'em first.

You have to find 'em first.That's why the US gov has to listen in on your phone conversations and your internet traffic.

So that means don't kill them all? Why speak in parables?

That wasn't a parable (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parable), it was sarcasm.

That wasn't a parable (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parable), it was sarcasm.
So you often choose sarcasm ("A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.") to communicate here. Why not speak to people with a minimum of respect like an adult?

So you often choose sarcasm ("A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.") to communicate here. Why not speak to people with a minumum of respect like an adult?

Why do you ask me questions you should be asking yourself?

Oh well, I tried.

Oh well, I tried.
You may be the most trying person speechless knows. ;)

You may be the most trying person speechless knows. ;)
Probably because I dare call him out on the hyperbole and misinformation spreading. :)

Probably because I dare call him out on the hyperbole and misinformation spreading. :)

What?? No Fox News in Canada??

what???? No fox news in canada???Yes but no one watches it.

Probably because I dare call him out on the hyperbole and misinformation spreading. :)

You give yourself way too much credit.

You may be the most trying person speechless knows. ;)

Not even close, he's just in his own strange world.

You give yourself way too much credit.
That's giving myself a lot of credit? Ok then.

That's giving myself a lot of credit? Ok then.

Seeing as how you haven't accomplished anything toward your claim, yes.

According to this fawning hack at Esquire, we should all love the Obamanator whether we like it or not.

How Can We Not Love Obama? (http://www.esquire.com/features/thousand-words-on-culture/loving-obama-0811)

Apparently The Messiah is back.

He is more impressive than Bush, I know, who isn't, still... in twenty years you may tell your grandkids, "yes he did".

Yeah but when I do it will be in the form of a curse.

Yes he did what? Diddly squat? Killed Osama bin Laden, solved the debt crisis?