you can't have it both ways. Even though you wingers try and try and try over and over....So then you agree with Obama security and terrorism policy? Because if you do, you have to admit Bush was right because Obama is doing pretty much the same.
Common sense would lead one to believe that Obama didn't have access to intelligence that a president has and once he did, realized it would be against our best interests to not follow the current course of action against our enemies.
this.I doubt national security had much to do with his continuation of Bush policies. I see it as expanding central government powers, and Obama would be the least likely president to give up any powers he inherited from his predecessors.
Do you post those hyphens just to be a prick?Thanks for displaying even more of your ignorance (and personal attacks). You need to study up on the 80 percent of the Patriot Act which benefits the protection of America.
Not a surprise that you RAGE! on about something of which you know nothing.
I think it's also a public perception problem...and the fact that Democrats, even when they are IN POWER, seem to not be able to locate their collective spine.BlackBush is just as wrong as Bush but as I've said 100x Democrats cannot be an opposition party to security/war/outsourcing/oil/wallstreet/insurance/pharma oligarchy, because Democrats are as dependent as Republicans on corporate interest groups for campaign funding. Your $20 Obama tshirt aint shit.
Wrong. The politicians are doing nothing to remove actual threat. The threat is bigger than ever. Proof?I think it's also a public perception problem...and the fact that Democrats, even when they are IN POWER, seem to not be able to locate their collective spine.
As a liberal, I'm constantly pissed off that Democrats refuse to stand up to Republicans waving around phrases like "support our troops", "fight terrorism", "Jesus", "freedom", etc, etc, without telling them to STFU and stop being such flaming hypocrites.
It's not a funding issue at all. Politicians simply CAN'T oppose a security policy, ANY security policy, because it would mean political suicide if something bad happened and they were on the record opposing a security measure. It doesn't matter if the measure is effective, if it is worth the cost...the voters are too stupid to understand the difference. All someone's opponent has to do is show grainy terrorism related video and have an ominous voice over saying so-and-so voted against the Patriot Protection for Freedom Act and the voters will flock to the polls to support the new guy.
We LOVE to bash politicians in this country, but honestly we get the representatives we deserve...because we as voters are largely complete morons.
The only problem is that that argument is total BS. The Bill of Rights was passed at a time when punishments like Hanging, Drawing and Quartering and Burning at the Stake were still (at least technically) legal in the United Kingdom. THAT is what the founders were trying to ban. If the people who wrote the Bill of Rights had considered the death penalty to be cruel & unusual they would have simply banned it, which of course they did not.Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
I understand the conservation of political capital for purposes of prioritization, however what we witness isn't the status quo Unfortunately we not only see passive support, but in some cases an embracing and active expansion of some things. Captives in Afghanistan to avoid Gitmo controversies comes to mind.Yup, but I see it just a tad differently. Politics, as we all know or should know, is the art of the possible. In order to marshal whatever political capital he had in support of his many domestic initiatives, he decided to retreat from and protect his "terrorism" flank from Republican attack and cover himself in the flag.
Given the ambitions of his domestic program and left with SO much to address domestically after 8 years of President Cheney, he prioritized.
It's done all the time in politics. Politics is the art of the possible.
It was cynical, but absolutely necessary. Try to fight on too many fronts at once politically, and you'd lose on them all. As it is, Obama has had a herculean task post Cheney/Bush, and he and his party will suffer for not magically making it ALL right in just 2 short years in 2010, and maybe also in 2012.
Never overestimate the collective intelligence and attention span of the American electorate!
And, wolf, you eminently sane and substantive poster, you, I have no major beef with you, but still would like to point out that there is no cow in kowtow.