Indefinite Detention Bill signed into Law today.

[Darwin333]

Obama's signing statement comes across like 'if I say some nice things progressives want to hear, maybe it'll reduce the political price for signing it'. That's bad.

I am glad that you are insulted by it but I took his signing statement a bit differently.

I read it as "This gives me, and ALL of my predecessors the authority/power to violate everything this country stands for but I pinky promise that I won't use that power even though I am granting it for all future presidents."

The fact that he is a Constitutional scholar and this pretty much removes an entire fucking amendment from the Bill of Rights makes it that much worse.

Don't get me wrong, the assholes in Congress, most of whom at least pretended that this didn't violate our most basic liberties, need to hang from a tall tree and a short piece of rope too but to admit it and THEN sign it into law..... Fuck every last sonofabitch that voted for and signed this bill, I don't give two fucks what else was in it, this one part was enough to vote against it.

Isn't it rather ironic that as partisan as Congress has been lately that THIS bullshit passes with huge bipartisan support? One of the asshole parties could write a bill that said the sky was blue and it would be a fucking partisan battle but taking away core liberties, sure thing where do we sign....

Personally, I think a very good case could be made that this is a treasonous act by every person in the Congress and Senate who voted for it as well as the President who signed it into law and the President all but admitted as such.

 

[Darwin333]

Leaving us with the last branch to defend the constitution, the Supremes.

A good example why I saw the Supremes are a very important issue in electing President.

We really can't trust this current court to protect against this sort of thing any more than they did in Citizens v. United 5 to 4. Obama has done a lot better on Justices, at least.

After his signature on this bill and the accompanying signing statement, that doesn't give me a single bit of hope. If his judgement is this bad when it comes to the Constitution, that he swore to protect btw, I have absolutely zero faith in him to pick a Supreme Court Justice whose job it is to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Darwin333]

Ron Paul is most certainly someone that no one in their right mind should vote for but that's mostly due to his horrible understanding of basic economics, not his view on civil liberties.

At least after his term, although he might pick some bad economic advisors, we would not have lost any of our few remaining liberties. Hell, maybe we could actually get a bit back.

 

[fskimospy]

At least after his term, although he might pick some bad economic advisors, we would not have lost any of our few remaining liberties. Hell, maybe we could actually get a bit back.

I get you, I really do, but his views on economics are so catastrophic I couldn't even think about supporting him. I think he has some wonderful views on civil liberties (with a few notable exceptions), but it's just not enough.

 

[cybrsage]

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nybmn/ive_been_reading_ndaa_hr_1540_and_here_are_the/

I've skimmed this so far but I found something else that interesting in the above link.



This gets the obligatory "WTF?"

That is due to treaties we have with them...they are honoring the old US-Soviet treaties. Basically, from time to time, we have to show how many nuclear missiles we have at sea and they have to do the same. This info is classified, but it is part of the arms reduction treaty we both agreed to.

 

[Spikesoldier]

I get you, I really do, but his views on economics are so catastrophic I couldn't even think about supporting him. I think he has some wonderful views on civil liberties (with a few notable exceptions), but it's just not enough.

You are too used to a president that gets his way 100% and signs everything into law via executive order. Just because he has his 'wacky' views doesnt necessarily mean that it will become law ala dictatorship. Congress will find a medium or neuter his ideas to make them less wacky and more viable before they are signed into law.

 

[Franz316]

Bu, bu bu BUSH and PATRIOT ACT and EVIL PARANOID REPUBLICANS are the ones taking our rights! How can this be? 🙄

They are all the same claiming to play for different teams.

 

[fskimospy]

You are too used to a president that gets his way 100% and signs everything into law via executive order. Just because he has his 'wacky' views doesnt necessarily mean that it will become law ala dictatorship. Congress will find a medium or neuter his ideas to make them less wacky and more viable before they are signed into law.

I don't think you're looking at this the right way. The Constitution requires a great deal of work together in order to get things done, but it really only requires one intransigent branch to make it so that almost nothing gets done.

Although the President wields an enormous amount of power in how the federal bureaucracy actually carries out the nation's business, you are right that he can't force things to occur by fiat. What he can do is sit there and refuse to do anything, which seems quite probable to me, forcing Congress to rely on veto overrides to get anything done. This seems like a policy catastrophe to me. Some things Congress wouldn't even be able to override him on, as he could simply decline to make appointments to the agencies that he thinks shouldn't exist, etc.

 

[PingviN]

Created by Repubs
Signed by a Dem prez

Both are equally stupid, what's the point in trying to blame the one side? The terrorists won, gj.

 

[cybrsage]

Created by Repubs
Signed by a Dem prez

Both are equally stupid, what's the point in trying to blame the one side? The terrorists won, gj.

Dems voted for it too.

 

[PingviN]

Dems voted for it too.

Does it change the fact that both parties are equally stupid?

 

[911paramedic]

Remember to vote for obama. He'd never let this happen.

qft, what a schmuck.

 

[Darwin333]

I get you, I really do, but his views on economics are so catastrophic I couldn't even think about supporting him. I think he has some wonderful views on civil liberties (with a few notable exceptions), but it's just not enough.

At the same time, what good are the best economic views if they take away your basic liberties and freedoms?

Like I said, definitely not a Paulbot but its an intriguing debate.

 

[Darwin333]

Dems voted for it too.

Did you miss his last sentence?

You would think that this bipartisan assraping of US liberty wouldn't generate such partisan posts.

 

[Jaskalas]

finish destroying the fundamentals this country was founded on and the terrorists will have achieved exactly what they set out to do.

The terrorists already terrorized us. Turning us into North Korea likely wasn't on their mind at the time. No, that scheme is entirely in the heads of our elected leaders.

 

[Craig234]

After his signature on this bill and the accompanying signing statement, that doesn't give me a single bit of hope. If his judgement is this bad when it comes to the Constitution, that he swore to protect btw, I have absolutely zero faith in him to pick a Supreme Court Justice whose job it is to interpret the Constitution.

I think that's not only wrong, but there's a track history now showing it is.

In the 2008 campaign, he indiicated who his 'Supreme Court models' were for appointments, and he gave a good centrist answer - I think Earl Warren (a Republican, by the way) was one. That seems like an honest answer - and a decent pick. I forget a second name but it's in the same area. McCain, on the other hand, named a couple of the radical right for his models - a disaster. IIRC it was John Robers, and Samuel Alito.

That right there gave us a very important reason to pick Obama, if he was accurately stating his position, and history shows he was. His appointments have been very well reviewed, centrist nominees in both cases (coincidentally, unlike Thomas' race not being a coincidence, women, one Hispanic).

Surprisingly, their nomination hearings did not include a law professor testifying about their leaving pubic hairs to sexually harrass their subordinates).

Also surprisingly, their hearings and conduct have not included things like activist spouses in radical political movements who take hundreds of thousands of dollars from and violate the law not to declare (also Thiomas), or forget in their hearings they had a leadership role in a partisan group out to push a political agenda onto the judiciary at all levels, and use benefits to recruit many future and current lawyers and judges (John Roberts, and the other radical right are previous members as I understand it, of 'The Federalist Society').

No, while Obama is not showing the respect for constitutional rights we'd like in policies, his supremev court nominess are better, and have not ruled with the 'radical right'.

So, the facts are in contradicting your claim. If he hadn't appointed any, I'd share your concern more. He has, and he's done pretty well, so far preserving the current 5-4 balance.

Without that, the balance would be 7-2 for a long time to come cementing the radical right in control of the court. This is enough reason to vote for him IMO.

 

[leper84]

Ron Paul is most certainly someone that no one in their right mind should vote for but that's mostly due to his horrible understanding of basic economics, not his view on civil liberties.

Where exactly do you view he misunderstands basic economics? I hope you aren't inferring that this current corporatist, plutocratic mess of crony-capitalism we have right now is the right way to understand things.... cause it doesn't seem to be working. Unless you like the idea of the haves squeezing the lower upper and middle classes down into the have-nots.....

 

[fskimospy]

Where exactly do you view he misunderstands basic economics? I hope you aren't inferring that this current corporatist, plutocratic mess of crony-capitalism we have right now is the right way to understand things.... cause it doesn't seem to be working. Unless you like the idea of the haves squeezing the lower upper and middle classes down into the have-nots.....

No, his belief in the Austrian School shows me that he misunderstands basic economics. There are many reasons why this view of economics is viewed so poorly, reasons that have been discussed at great length on here already. It is basically clown college economics.

 

[Craig234]

They are all the same claiming to play for different teams.

No, they're not. That's a wrong and dangerous position. They are, however, too MUCH alike - something not an accident when the money of the most wealthy is dominant.

On this issue, they're the same. On many, many others, they're not. The Iraq war vote failed - if left to Democrats. The Patriot Act extension failed - if left to Democrats.

 

[Craig234]

Where exactly do you view he misunderstands basic economics? I hope you aren't inferring that this current corporatist, plutocratic mess of crony-capitalism we have right now is the right way to understand things.... cause it doesn't seem to be working. Unless you like the idea of the haves squeezing the lower upper and middle classes down into the have-nots.....

I'm glad to see your views, but Ron Paul supports the opposite of that.

 

[Nebor]

No, his belief in the Austrian School shows me that he misunderstands basic economics. There are many reasons why this view of economics is viewed so poorly, reasons that have been discussed at great length on here already. It is basically clown college economics.

I have a friend here in the Army that's a clown (birthday parties and such,) and went to the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey clown college in Florida back in the 1990s. I just texted him, and he said they received NO economics courses at all there, Austrian or otherwise. So where are you getting your info from?

 

[waggy]

No, they're not. That's a wrong and dangerous position. They are, however, too MUCH alike - something not an accident when the money of the most wealthy is dominant.

On this issue, they're the same. On many, many others, they're not. The Iraq war vote failed - if left to Democrats. The Patriot Act extension failed - if left to Democrats.

dems were in charge. did they cancel the Patriot act? no in fact Obama signed a extension of it didn't he? He had a chance to let it die and didn't.

 

[waggy]

I have a friend here in the Army that's a clown (birthday parties and such,) and went to the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey clown college in Florida back in the 1990s. I just texted him, and he said they received NO economics courses at all there, Austrian or otherwise. So where are you getting your info from?

lol

/facepalm

 

[fskimospy]

I have a friend here in the Army that's a clown (birthday parties and such,) and went to the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey clown college in Florida back in the 1990s. I just texted him, and he said they received NO economics courses at all there, Austrian or otherwise. So where are you getting your info from?

Really? That's awesome. I have so many questions to ask him. First and foremost, I don't believe I have ever met someone who genuinely likes clowns and so who are these people that are hiring him?

I just called Ringling Brothers up and they said the economics courses are in the deluxe package. It's a bit pricey, which is probably why a fancy doctor could afford it but a regular guy might miss out.

 

[Craig234]

I am glad that you are insulted by it but I took his signing statement a bit differently.

I read it as "This gives me, and ALL of my predecessors the authority/power to violate everything this country stands for but I pinky promise that I won't use that power even though I am granting it for all future presidents."

The fact that he is a Constitutional scholar and this pretty much removes an entire fucking amendment from the Bill of Rights makes it that much worse.

Don't get me wrong, the assholes in Congress, most of whom at least pretended that this didn't violate our most basic liberties, need to hang from a tall tree and a short piece of rope too but to admit it and THEN sign it into law..... Fuck every last sonofabitch that voted for and signed this bill, I don't give two fucks what else was in it, this one part was enough to vote against it.

Isn't it rather ironic that as partisan as Congress has been lately that THIS bullshit passes with huge bipartisan support? One of the asshole parties could write a bill that said the sky was blue and it would be a fucking partisan battle but taking away core liberties, sure thing where do we sign....

Personally, I think a very good case could be made that this is a treasonous act by every person in the Congress and Senate who voted for it as well as the President who signed it into law and the President all but admitted as such.

Let's say we grant all those points about the politicians.

Something not mentioned is the larger issue of public opinion - why the civil rights view opposing this bill seems to be in the minority, and being 'strong on security' by supporting this bill and other measures bad for civil rights is seen as a political strength for Obama in winning re-election.

I'm not mentioning that to justify the politicians, but to say that's an important issue.

As long as the people are crying for measures for 'security by giving up liberties', it's an uphill battle calling for politicians to strong for the people's rights against public opinion.

This is a big part of why we're supposed to have politically indepedent courts - a process very corrupted in recent years by a very politicized appointment and approval.

To the point that Bush handed nominee evaluation to the right-wing Federalist Society.