What the hell is the matter with you two?

We're gonna need a bigger democrat.

feckingmorons: I don't think anyone watches her - not even President Obama.

I do.

Tor_Eckman: Gee, two of Fark's biggest d-bags in the first dozen posts.

This thread is toast.

Not just this thread.

So Obama is saying essentially Habeas Bupkis. I can't even see the looking glass from here.

Thread is half-hidden already, and I can't watch YouTube at work.. guess I'll wander off..

I guess it dosen't matter who is stood at the podium, the people pulling the strings are always the same.

Now sub-tard cares about Mad-cow?

You know the morons pretending to run for president are getting desperate when they worry about what a boring lesbian says about them.

Someone tell me again why we should be comforted by the President's veto threat of the NDAA?

The administration's objections hinge on the notion that the codification in the AUMF unduly restricts the Executive branch in such matters. And now we have this speech?

/ugh... off to check the pantry... gotta make sure I've only got 6.5 days worth of food... might need to hide the nutter butters in case homeland security stops by for a Freedom Inspection.

cman: This will be fun to watch.

Liberals shiatting on Liberals is always fun to watch.

You think Obama is a liberal, aren't you just precious.

CanisNoir:
I'm not a big fan of Rachel Madow and often she takes things out of context, what she played sure sounded damning, but I'd have to read the full transcript of his speech before I get too paranoid about it. Still, there's no denying now that Obama has ripped up his "Constitutional Scholar" credentials.

Pop goes the Linky (new window)

When you agree with Madow, and I agree with you, that is a huge farking warning sign that shiat has gone horribly wrong.

cman: This will be fun to watch.

Yes, I agree. It will be fun to watch America burn. I desire nothing more than to watch Americans suffer, to be slaves forever, to die having untasted liberty.

Americans are nothing but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it -- because they choose to be. Die not free, my fellow citizens. I am sick of you, your stupidity, your cruelty, your apathy, and your desire to be oppressed.

End this farcical democracy and embrace your face to the boot. When a dog is dying of rabies, you don't try to save him; you don't try to give him your love; you don't take him in, feed him. You kill him quickly.

From 2009?

WaitWhatWhy: When you agree with Madow, and I agree with you, that is a huge farking warning sign that shiat has gone horribly wrong.

Yikes...Yeah.

CanisNoir: WaitWhatWhy: When you agree with Madow, and I agree with you, that is a huge farking warning sign that shiat has gone horribly wrong.

Ya, that's very true even when said jokingly. You know, I'm also not a big fan of the OWS movement, but that report also said any "anti-government groups" which could include them as well. Sure I'll laugh when a hippy cries for momma after being Zip Tied and stuck in a holding cell for four hours, but well, I'd have a hell of a lot more sympathy for them if the Government started locking them up indefinitely.

The other spooky thing about this is that the power won't go away if Obama loses the next Election, and even if he wins, he's term limited and it won't go away in four years either, so regardless of which side of the Political Spectrum you fall, you can count on your political opponents at some point in time being able to lock you up indefinitely simply because you don't agree with their policies.

Yup. It's another step towards hard authoritarian government in the states. It'd be real nice if the straight ticket voters in both parties would wake up and start voting for people who actually care about things like the Constitution and liberty.
/Both sides are bad, vote Smith & Wesson

Maddow and Greenwald are two of the very few mainstream media people who have consistently held Obama's feet to the fire on this issue and for that I thank them.

cman: This will only happen when people lose the mindset of voting for the lesser of two evils and vote for those who better represent their own ideology. But no, they see that as a vote thrown away.

THIS IS WHY THINGS ARE THE SAME UNDER OBAMA AS THEY WERE UNDER BUSH.

You have some dog shiat. One side, the Republicans, will serve it with sprinkles on top. The other side, the Democrats, serve it with whipped cream. It doesn't matter what they put on top of it because underneath it all it is still dog shiat.

What you're saying, if I interpret this correctly is, "both sides are bad, so vote Republican."

Karl Rove is proud of you.

First off, I disagree with this administration's position on this. However, if you listen to the speech, the President is saying that for the past ten years we've essentially held people at the whim of...well...George Bush and Dick Cheney. There was no oversight, no review of why people were in Gitmo, they just were. So to say that there's going to at least be some sort of outside review, that the power to do this, which I vehemently disagree with our government having in the first place, but that's a separate issue, is at LEAST going to have a legal framework instead of "it's legal because the President says it is" is a step, a small step, in the right direction. Or rather, not a step in the right direction, because that would be to just end this practice altogether, but at least it's shining some light on what has been basically a completely lawless practice.

Again, it's bad, yes, but at least it's an attempt to make the powers that be responsible in some way for the decisions they are making.

You damn lockstep liberals...never criticizing your own. Oh wait.

/derp

Lyonid: Someone tell me again why we should be comforted by the President's veto threat of the NDAA?

The administration's objections hinge on the notion that the codification in the AUMF unduly restricts the Executive branch in such matters. And now we have this speech?

/ugh... off to check the pantry... gotta make sure I've only got 6.5 days worth of food... might need to hide the nutter butters in case homeland security stops by for a Freedom Inspection.

I'm packed and ready for the FEMA detention camp.

What bothers me so much is that people will believe the veto threat has anything to do with Obama's concern for the NDAA's trampling of the Bill of Rights. If anyone wants to read the White House objections to the Act, it's here.

"Any bill that challenges or constrains the President's critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President's senior
advisers to recommend a veto." [emphasis in original]

It's a pissing contest which centers around who has the power, not a substantive argument.

As I posted in another thread. the War Against Terror has become a War of Tyranny.

Lionel Mandrake: feckingmorons: If I want opinion and bullshiat interviews I'll continue to talk to myself.

You are full of BS, that's for sure

And, hopefully, at the rate he's going, he'll piss off everyone on Fark enough so they'll put him on ignore and he'll get his wish.

cman: This will be fun to watch.

Liberals shiatting on Liberals is always fun to watch.

And when a liberal actually shiats on another liberal, it will be fun to watch.

This was a centrist shiatting on a center-rightist. So meh.

Dr. Whoof: cman: This will only happen when people lose the mindset of voting for the lesser of two evils and vote for those who better represent their own ideology. But no, they see that as a vote thrown away.

THIS IS WHY THINGS ARE THE SAME UNDER OBAMA AS THEY WERE UNDER BUSH.

You have some dog shiat. One side, the Republicans, will serve it with sprinkles on top. The other side, the Democrats, serve it with whipped cream. It doesn't matter what they put on top of it because underneath it all it is still dog shiat.

What you're saying, if I interpret this correctly is, "both sides are bad, so vote Republican."

Karl Rove is proud of you.

First off, I disagree with this administration's position on this. However, if you listen to the speech, the President is saying that for the past ten years we've essentially held people at the whim of...well...George Bush and Dick Cheney. There was no oversight, no review of why people were in Gitmo, they just were. So to say that there's going to at least be some sort of outside review, that the power to do this, which I vehemently disagree with our government having in the first place, but that's a separate issue, is at LEAST going to have a legal framework instead of "it's legal because the President says it is" is a step, a small step, in the right direction. Or rather, not a step in the right direction, because that would be to just end this practice altogether, but at least it's shining some light on what has been basically a completely lawless practice.

Again, it's bad, yes, but at least it's an attempt to make the powers that be responsible in some way for the decisions they are making.

The problem is that even the lesser of two evils, and I'll certainly concede to Obame as being less harmful to the nation then Bush, still results in evil. The problem is, as noted above, with the mentality of the voting public. We, unfortunately, have the government we deserve (at least as a nation, perhaps not individually). We are basically driving towards a cliff. Yeah, the Republicans are pressing the gas like a drunk NASCAR fan. However, instead of trying to take the wheel and turn the car, the Democrats are basically asking nicely if we could slow down a little. This country needs a major politcal force to pull hard anti-authoritarian just to counter the hard RWA turn we've taken over the last 30 years. I doubt it will happen, but saying so doesn't come down to "both sides are bad, so vote Republican".

shivashakti: feckingmorons: I don't think anyone watches her - not even President Obama.

I do.

I do as well. Love her show

cman: Dr. Whoof: cman: This will only happen when people lose the mindset of voting for the lesser of two evils and vote for those who better represent their own ideology. But no, they see that as a vote thrown away.

THIS IS WHY THINGS ARE THE SAME UNDER OBAMA AS THEY WERE UNDER BUSH.

You have some dog shiat. One side, the Republicans, will serve it with sprinkles on top. The other side, the Democrats, serve it with whipped cream. It doesn't matter what they put on top of it because underneath it all it is still dog shiat.

What you're saying, if I interpret this correctly is, "both sides are bad, so vote Republican."

Karl Rove is proud of you.

First off, I disagree with this administration's position on this. However, if you listen to the speech, the President is saying that for the past ten years we've essentially held people at the whim of...well...George Bush and Dick Cheney. There was no oversight, no review of why people were in Gitmo, they just were. So to say that there's going to at least be some sort of outside review, that the power to do this, which I vehemently disagree with our government having in the first place, but that's a separate issue, is at LEAST going to have a legal framework instead of "it's legal because the President says it is" is a step, a small step, in the right direction. Or rather, not a step in the right direction, because that would be to just end this practice altogether, but at least it's shining some light on what has been basically a completely lawless practice.

Again, it's bad, yes, but at least it's an attempt to make the powers that be responsible in some way for the decisions they are making.

How did you come to that assumption? I said that Obama is continuing Bush's unconstitutional policies so you call me a GOP shrill?

Its a standard diversionary tactic - what do you think the 'both sides are are bad, so vote Repubican' meme is about? It is just a quick way for someone on the left to redirect the conversation away from faults on the left and make the original poster look biased in their criticism.

Oddly enough, I think that is something of which Karl Rove would be proud.

If she still gave a shiat about her appearance, she wouldn't have a face made for radio.

xanadian: *watches video*

Yup. Based off of this alone, and the CBS report, I'm tempted to say Obama has lost my vote. Sadly, I doubt any of the GOP frontrunners are going to be much better.

:-/

I wonder what he's going to do with NDAA...

No, any GOP candidate would be worse, but on the plus side the left could at least go back back to being outraged about this stuff and mobilise against it.

With Obama doing it, the response will be mainly meek acceptance, a few voices expressing disappointment and some political 'Stockholm syndrome' sufferers who'll actually try to explain why this is actually a good thing.

xanadian: *watches video*

Yup. Based off of this alone, and the CBS report, I'm tempted to say Obama has lost my vote. Sadly, I doubt any of the GOP frontrunners are going to be much better.

:-/

I wonder what he's going to do with NDAA...

He'll veto it. Not because, as a Constitutional scholar, he believes the Constitution will suffer a mortal wound, but because it can be argued that military detainees are prisoner's of war are afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention. By maintaining their status as "enemy combatants", the provisions need not apply.

And Congress has enough votes to override that veto.

WaitWhatWhy: The problem is that even the lesser of two evils, and I'll certainly concede to Obame as being less harmful to the nation then Bush, still results in evil.

I, respectfully, disagree with this.

Even Dick Cheney has given Obama props for basically continuing the Bush national security policy. He's taken something that was extremely radical and controversial, and he's gotten Democrats to not only no longer object to it but actively support it. Democrats, by and large, now don't only no longer object to the Presidential power to detain people indefinitely, they actively cheer for the assassination of United States citizens with no judicial due process, and point to it as an example of what a Great Leader we have. This, to say the least, is deeply troubling.

The normalization of the presidential power-grab in the wake of 9/11 by making it bipartisan is much, much more harmful to the nation as a whole than if these had remained deeply divisive issues.

For every person like Maddow willing to take a stand, their is a Thomas farking Friedman.

Ignore the "Indefinite Detention" portion of his speech for a moment. I completely disagree with any form of detention for crimes you might commit.

Rachel was pretty critical of Obama for trying to define terrorist to comply with our rule of law. Yesterday, Rand Paul pointed out that having seven days worth of food in your house technically can classify you as a terrorist. I think this does show that we do need a strict definition of what it takes to be considered a terrorist. Yet, Rachel seems to think that this is a bad thing.