• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Justifying blind loyalty to obama

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dumbass supporters of these politicians are on all sides. Obama has a ton of nut huggers, just like all the ones before him and after him will have. People get invested and support a guy and instead of owning up to the BS and admitting it they dig in deeper
 
eskimospy said:
Saying a president should be impeached for lawfully exercising his powers is dumb.
Click to expand...

Should FDR been allowed to imprison Japanese -Americans?

Should FDR been allowed to seize gold?

Should George Bush have been allowed to detain people at guantanamo bay?

Just because the president has the authority to do something does not make it right.


Bowfinger said:
There is no evidence Obama had any involvement in the investigation. There was also no court order re. the phone records because there is no law requiring one. This is another example of your fundamental ignorance about these events.
Click to expand...

So the government can tell verizon to hand over phone records and they just do it?

And nobody sees anything wrong with that?
 
Texashiker said:
Should FDR been allowed to imprison Japanese -Americans?

Should FDR been allowed to seize gold?

Should George Bush have been allowed to detain people at guantanamo bay?

Just because the president has the authority to do something does not make it right.




So the government can tell verizon to hand over phone records and they just do it?

And nobody sees anything wrong with that?
Click to expand...

People may not like to hear it but yes to the above, under certain circumstances yes.
 
Texashiker said:
Should FDR been allowed to imprison Japanese -Americans?

Should FDR been allowed to seize gold?

Should George Bush have been allowed to detain people at guantanamo bay?

Just because the president has the authority to do something does not make it right.
Click to expand...

I seriously don't even know what your point is anymore. Your OP asked why Obama wasn't being impeached, and that was answered. He hasn't done anything that warrants impeachment.

You now appear to have retreated to "doesn't anyone think that these are bad things?". Of course people do, but there's a difference between a law I disagree with and an action that leads to impeachment. It is also odd that you seem to think that Obama is the recipient of some sort of blind loyalty that is different from previous presidents but then list a bunch of things that previous presidents did that were far worse.

This whole thread seems pretty irrational.
 
Texashiker said:
Should FDR been allowed to imprison Japanese -Americans?

Should FDR been allowed to seize gold?

Should George Bush have been allowed to detain people at guantanamo bay?

Just because the president has the authority to do something does not make it right.




So the government can tell verizon to hand over phone records and they just do it?

And nobody sees anything wrong with that?
Click to expand...


Again, your issue is with the laws and the lack of oversight, not with the president. Why don't you call your congressman and tell them to repeal the patriot act, tell them they can fit it in before the 38th attempt at repealing Obamacare.
 
Texashiker said:
So the government can tell verizon to hand over phone records and they just do it?

And nobody sees anything wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Actually, plenty of people see something wrong with that. It's why there was a law that went to the Senate that would have prevented this. The GOP filibustered that law. As we've pointed out before, disliking something and it being an impeachable offense are different. This President is being held to the same standards as previous ones.

Hell, Bush very clearly did illegal stuff and was never impeached for it. The warrantless wiretapping he did clearly violated the law. The authorization of torture clearly violated the law. I'm sure there were other things that aren't coming to mind. When exactly was he impeached and why wasn't he held to the same standards as previous Presidents?
 
Texashiker said:
And what should those circumstances be? In the name of national security?
Click to expand...

There are different reasons and circumstances for each one of those that you listed. The gold seizure might be more unlikely in our times, but it is only used during severe economic crisis as it was during FDR's times, which you can read up on an article about it here: http://moneymorning.com/2010/10/20/government-seize-gold/

If we end up in another major war again, and lets say for instance we end up at war with China for instance.. and there are chinese spies discovered in our own country, it is possible that the US might not create interment camps the way they did years ago, but they might indeed do a sweep of chinese americans who they think might be working with the chinese and put them in a place like Guantanamo for holding. I am not saying that it is right to do that to innocent people. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with torture either, as I feel is an ineffective method of getting information out of people. But at times of war, this is what our Government will do to protect our country .

Each thing you listed above has certain circumstances, dire ones, that could cause the Government to react and act on each one of those. Times are quickly changing though, and so its my hope that these things become quickly outdated.
 
Texashiker said:
Just because something is legal does not make it right.

Obama got a court order for the phone records, nixon did not. Either route we are left with the same result, the government spying on the press.
Click to expand...

Please provide a picture of Obama in court getting the court order. So you don't see a difference between legal and illegal means? BTW I think the Justice Department overreached but I'm also surprised you aren't calling for the head of whoever leaked classified material since that is a clear violation of the law. Double standard much?
 
Incorruptible said:
Can't believe the ass-kissing supporters of obama defend what he did to AP. These idiots would be furious with bush if he did it.
Click to expand...

And you would be cheering since Bush was going after law breakers who leaked classified material. What part of illegal don't you understand? 😉
 
thraashman said:
Actually, plenty of people see something wrong with that. It's why there was a law that went to the Senate that would have prevented this. The GOP filibustered that law. As we've pointed out before, disliking something and it being an impeachable offense are different. This President is being held to the same standards as previous ones.

Hell, Bush very clearly did illegal stuff and was never impeached for it. The warrantless wiretapping he did clearly violated the law. The authorization of torture clearly violated the law. I'm sure there were other things that aren't coming to mind. When exactly was he impeached and why wasn't he held to the same standards as previous Presidents?
Click to expand...

It's interesting you bring up the Shield law that both the Republicans and the Democrats voted against back in 2009. Now Schumer is trying to bring the Shield law back, and I watched one of the Republicans already say that they might not allow it to pass the House. Which I find surprising, since all the Republicans right now are crying foul about the AP phone records being gathered under an investigation. Mark my words, it will be the GOP who will do exactly what that one republican said on TV, they won't pass it.

Because this is all bluster right now, and as I posted in another thread, the strategy right now with the GOP is to stir up scandals that really aren't scandals and not to legislate. The whole idea is to get nothing accomplished or done in congress to purposefully frustrate and hurt the American people, so they can leave a nasty stained 2nd term legacy for this President and blame him for it. In essence set things up to knock Hillary down hopefully so she won't win when 2016 elections come up.
 
thraashman said:
Hell, Bush very clearly did illegal stuff and was never impeached for it. The warrantless wiretapping he did clearly violated the law. The authorization of torture clearly violated the law. I'm sure there were other things that aren't coming to mind. When exactly was he impeached and why wasn't he held to the same standards as previous Presidents?
Click to expand...

Our government has gone to hell in a gift wrapped handbag.


eskimospy said:
I seriously don't even know what your point is anymore. Your OP asked why Obama wasn't being impeached, and that was answered. He hasn't done anything that warrants impeachment.
Click to expand...

Obama may not have done anything that broke the law, but does that excuse government overreach?
 
Last edited:
brycejones said:
And you would be cheering since Bush was going after law breakers who leaked classified material. What part of illegal don't you understand? 😉
Click to expand...

I never supported bush. Stop making assumptions it really makes you look more ignorant.

Why is that during bush leaking material was alright but under obama it's not according to idiot liberals.
 
Texashiker

It amazes me that you never seem to feel foolish or chagrined when people show in clearcut terms that your posts are nonsense.

Here is a solution you can use for the rest of your life. When people do things you don't like but are legal, demanding punishment is absurd. If you are in a minority, perhaps the most you can do is whine about it. Remember, excessive whining is irritating and gets you tuned out. If however, you are in the majority, you can urge others to side with you and demand that changes be made so that repeating an act has penalties.

When you need to rely falsehoods and exaggeration to make a point, many others will see your arguments as weak and that your point of view is not to be taken seriously. To accomplish any real change that you desire, real facts and evidence go a long way to advance your point of view.
 
jackschmittusa said:
Texashiker

It amazes me that you never seem to feel foolish or chagrined when people show in clearcut terms that your posts are nonsense.

Here is a solution you can use for the rest of your life. When people do things you don't like but are legal, demanding punishment is absurd. If you are in a minority, perhaps the most you can do is whine about it. Remember, excessive whining is irritating and gets you tuned out. If however, you are in the majority, you can urge others to side with you and demand that changes be made so that repeating an act has penalties.

When you need to rely falsehoods and exaggeration to make a point, many others will see your arguments as weak and that your point of view is not to be taken seriously. To accomplish any real change that you desire, real facts and evidence go a long way to advance your point of view.
Click to expand...

^^ This, right fucking here.. makes "the sense of the day post"!
 
brycejones said:
And you would be cheering since Bush was going after law breakers who leaked classified material. What part of illegal don't you understand? 😉
Click to expand...


LOTS of republicans didn't support bush or his policies.

Republicans as a group are generally fine with someone not supporting a particular politician.

Democrats kick them out.


No different than what we see on this forum... Speak no evil about our Dear Leader.
 
jackschmittusa said:
Texashiker

It amazes me that you never seem to feel foolish or chagrined when people show in clearcut terms that your posts are nonsense.
Click to expand...

Nope, not at all. And why should I?

Should those that have a minority opinion keep quiet?

Should only those in the majority be privileged to voice their opinion?

It has been pointed out that obama did not break any laws, so he should not be impeached.

My rebuttal is obama has brought shame to the office of the president. For being an incompetent leader, he should be removed. And yes, incompetence is a reason to remove someone from their job.
 
Last edited:
Texashiker said:
Nope, not at all. And why should I?

Should those that have a minority opinion keep quiet?

Should only those in the majority be privileged to voice their opinion?

It has been pointed out that obama did not break any laws, so he should not be impeached.

My rebuttal is obama has brought shame to the office of the president. For being an incompetent leader, he should be removed.
Click to expand...
When they are painfully ignorant of the facts, partisans on both sides should keep their mouths shut (and their hands off their keyboards). They should spend their spare time educating themselves instead of parroting disinformation and blatant propaganda. As the saying goes, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
 
Incorruptible said:
I never supported bush. Stop making assumptions it really makes you look more ignorant.

Why is that during bush leaking material was alright but under obama it's not according to idiot liberals.
Click to expand...

LOL. You attempting to calling anyone ignorant is really cute. Leakers take a risk because its an illegal act. Unfortunately there are many more ways to leave a trail these days unless you go old school and only meet face to face in the park. This is probably the biggest reason prosecutions of leakers are up under the current administration. So follow this simple rule, you don't want to get caught don't leave an electronic trail.

Personally I desire that much more about what our government does be declassified and subject to public scrutiny. Sounds like you might feel the same way on that point at least.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
LOTS of republicans didn't support bush or his policies.

Republicans as a group are generally fine with someone not supporting a particular politician.

Democrats kick them out.


No different than what we see on this forum... Speak no evil about our Dear Leader.
Click to expand...
Lulz! Another post from Bizarro World, where down is up, black is white, and right is left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top