Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Obama Administrationís War On the Constitution

  1. -1
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,084
    vCash:
    6902
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Obama Administrationís War On the Constitution

    John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathan Turley.....

    Now that the Republican primary circus is over, I started to think about what it would mean to vote for Obama...
    Since mostly we hear from the daily hypocrisies of Mitt and friends, I thought we should examine "our guy" on a few issues with a bit more scrutiny than we hear from the "progressive left", which seems to be little or none at all.

    Instead of scrutiny, the usual arguments in favor of another Obama presidency are made: We must stop fanatics; it would be better than the fanaticsóhe's the last line of defense from the corporate barbariansóand of course the Supreme Court. It all makes a terrible kind of sense and I agree completely with Garry Wills who described the Republican primaries as " a revolting combination of con men & fanaticsó "the current primary race has become a demonstration that the Republican party does not deserve serious consideration for public office."

    True enough.

    But yet...

    ... there are certain Rubicon lines, as constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley calls them, that Obama has crossed.
    All political questions are not equal no matter how much you pivot. When people die or lose their physical freedom to feed certain economic sectors or ideologies, it becomes a zero sum game for me.
    This is not an exercise in bemoaning regrettable policy choices or cheering favorable ones but to ask fundamentally: Who are we? What are we voting for? And what does it mean?
    Three markers ó the Nobel Prize acceptance speech, the escalation speech at West Point, and the recent speech by Eric Holder ó crossed that Rubicon line for me...

    Mr. Obama, the Christian president with the Muslim-sounding name, would heed the admonitions of neither religion's prophets about making war and do what no empire or leader, including Alexander the Great, could do: he would, he assured us "get the job done in Afghanistan." And so we have our democratic president receiving the Nobel Peace Prize as he sends 30,000 more troops to a ten-year-old conflict in a country that's been war-torn for 5,000 years.

    Why? We'll never fully know. Instead, we got a speech that was stone bull**** and an insult to the very idea of peace.

    We can't have it both ways. Hope means endless war? Obama has metaphorically pushed all in with the usual international and institutional killers; and in the case of war and peace, literally.
    To sum it up: more war. So thousands die or are maimed; generations of families and veterans are damaged beyond imagination; sons and daughters come home in rubber bags. But he and his satellites get their four more years.

    The AfPak War is more H. G. Wells than Orwell, with people blindly letting each other get fed to the barons of Wall Street and the Pentagon, themselves playing the part of the Pashtuns. The paradox is simple: he got elected on his anti-war stance during a perfect storm of the economic meltdown and McCain saying the worst thing at the worst time as we stared into the abyss. Obama beat Clinton on "I'm against the war and she is for it." It was simple then, when he needed it to be.

    Under Obama do we continue to call the thousands of mercenaries in Afghanistan "general contractors" now that Bush is gone? No, we don't talk about them... not a story anymore.
    Do we prosecute felonies like torture or spying on Americans? No, time to "move on"...

    Now chaos is the norm and though the chaos is complicated, the answer is still simple. We can't afford this morally, financially, or physically. Or in a language the financial community can digest: the wars are ideologically and spiritually bankrupt. No need to get a score from the CBO.

    Drones bomb Pakistani villages across the border at an unprecedented rate. Is it legal? Does anyone care? "It begs the question," as Daniel Berrigan asks us, "is this one a "good war" or a "dumb war"? But the question betrays the bias: it is all the same. It's all madness."

    One is forced to asked the question: Is the President just another Ivy League ******* shredding civil liberties and due process and sending people to die in some ****hole for purely political reasons?
    http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11...s-constitution





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    phinfan3411's Avatar
    pofo mofo

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,627
    vCash:
    3782
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Good article, was wondering if this John Cusack is the actor, clicked on his name and it said that he makes films?

    Probably not the same guy, was just wondering.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,084
    vCash:
    6902
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phinfan3411 View Post
    Good article, was wondering if this John Cusack is the actor, clicked on his name and it said that he makes films?

    Probably not the same guy, was just wondering.
    It's him.....

    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,235
    vCash:
    6955
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Hope that guy isn't simultaneously a Romney supporter.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,084
    vCash:
    6902
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I'm pretty sure Cusack is liberal-leaning and that he voted for Obama. He's been making the rounds lately attacking Obama on wars and civil liberties. Kudos to him. I don't think he's for Romney at all.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    phinfan3411's Avatar
    pofo mofo

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,627
    vCash:
    3782
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    I'm pretty sure Cusack is liberal-leaning and that he voted for Obama. He's been making the rounds lately attacking Obama on wars and civil liberties. Kudos to him. I don't think he's for Romney at all.
    I like that, honestly partisan attacks mean nothing to me, they sound like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon, waah waa waah.

    I am only interested in non partisan reports or the rare partisan attacking their own side, i usually find those to be truthful.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,866
    vCash:
    3309
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Sadly, the other choice is:



    Wednesday on CNN, former Missouri Gov. Tim Pawlenty suggested that Mitt Romney would further the practice of using unmanned drones to kill suspected terrorists.
    “If you look at what Mitt Romney has said about President Obama’s presiding over our national security and defense posture, obviously his drone strikes and killing Osama bin Laden are positives,” he said. “But they don’t go far enough.”
    The Obama Administration publicly acknowledged in May that it was using drones to strike suspected terrorists in Yemen and Pakistan. The New York Times later revealed the President was intimately involved in who is and isn’t targeted by the drone strikes, and controversially defined “militants” as all military-age males in a given strike zone.
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/0...go-far-enough/

    Drone strikes are here to stay. And i have little doubt we will be involved in some type of war before the 2016 election, no matter who is president.

    edit: whoops, this was meant more for the other thread, but hell it can apply here to. Just a comparison of foreign policy when it comes to questionable circumstances between the two candidates.
    "I'm not here to be a distraction," Pouncey said.
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ogical-testing
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    phinfan3411's Avatar
    pofo mofo

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,627
    vCash:
    3782
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    Sadly, the other choice is:





    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/0...go-far-enough/

    Drone strikes are here to stay. And i have little doubt we will be involved in some type of war before the 2016 election, no matter who is president.

    edit: whoops, this was meant more for the other thread, but hell it can apply here to. Just a comparison of foreign policy when it comes to questionable circumstances between the two candidates.
    I believe this to be a bit of a cop out. The last administration had a drone program, this administration has a drone program, there will always be a drone program...so what? Just because both mainstream candidates offer little difference in this area certainly does not mean I have to support either one, and I don't.

    One more thing, yes Bush had a drone program, can anyone find where his administration targeted the rescuers then the funerals after exterminating the suspected terrorists? Seriously, I'm not saying he didn't, but I could not find it, and wouldn't that signify a "racheting up" of our war machine? Hasn't 9954 suggested this and been shot down?

    It's disgusting, who do you think are at those funerals, are they all bad people? How is this supposed to help us down the road? It will not unless you want a never ending supply of enemies, gosh who could want that?
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,866
    vCash:
    3309
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phinfan3411 View Post
    I believe this to be a bit of a cop out. The last administration had a drone program, this administration has a drone program, there will always be a drone program...so what? Just because both mainstream candidates offer little difference in this area certainly does not mean I have to support either one, and I don't.

    One more thing, yes Bush had a drone program, can anyone find where his administration targeted the rescuers then the funerals after exterminating the suspected terrorists? Seriously, I'm not saying he didn't, but I could not find it, and wouldn't that signify a "racheting up" of our war machine? Hasn't 9954 suggested this and been shot down?

    It's disgusting, who do you think are at those funerals, are they all bad people? How is this supposed to help us down the road? It will not unless you want a never ending supply of enemies, gosh who could want that?
    Not certain what you took as a cop out. I never stated people should vote for Obama because "Romney would make it worse". Or that its perfectly acceptable to bomb people because the program is here to stay. I simply pointed out that the two main contenders for the presidency both support drone strikes. I meant that as a statement of fact. I did speculate that we will be going to war before the next election, but i also stated it doesnt matter who is elected in November.

    I didnt suggest the drone strikes were good. I didnt suggest they were bad. I didnt suggest people should support it. I simply said that they are here to stay no matter who is in office come the new year.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    phinfan3411's Avatar
    pofo mofo

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,627
    vCash:
    3782
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    Not certain what you took as a cop out. I never stated people should vote for Obama because "Romney would make it worse". Or that its perfectly acceptable to bomb people because the program is here to stay. I simply pointed out that the two main contenders for the presidency both support drone strikes. I meant that as a statement of fact. I did speculate that we will be going to war before the next election, but i also stated it doesnt matter who is elected in November.

    I didnt suggest the drone strikes were good. I didnt suggest they were bad. I didnt suggest people should support it. I simply said that they are here to stay no matter who is in office come the new year.
    Fair enough...do you support the President?
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. we must pay our u.n. bills, obama administration insists
    By dreday in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-16-2011, 08:54 PM
  2. Obama administration behind recall efforts?
    By jared81 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-15-2011, 02:49 AM
  3. [Obama] Administration plans for end of Ďtoo big to failí
    By finataxia24 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-05-2009, 11:22 PM
  4. Obama Attacks Founding Fathers, Constitution
    By FinFatale in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 10-29-2008, 11:18 AM
  5. Obama: Bush not respecting Constitution
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-31-2007, 01:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •