Quote:
Originally Posted by
David Jamieson
* he's filled his cabinet with war hawks and "bio-tech yes men".
He has/is established/ing a cabinet of people who are not YES men to him.
They're GMO-loving lobbyists. There is absolutely no reason why they should have any position in his cabinet or anyone else's.
Quote:
* Cites WMD bull**** over Iran
Iran is actively pursuing nuclear technology.
No, they're not. WMD all over again, just like I said.
Quote:
* Talks tough with Russia as if they're bullies when it's already been established that Georgia was the agressor
do you read the news? Russia is a bully and uses energy stoppage in the middle of winter to force the EU to pay higher prices for energy.
I read multiple news sources every day, thank you. In the conflict between Russia and Georgia, Georgia was the aggressor.
Quote:
* Thinks the Patriot Act gives law enforcement "the tools they need"
portions of it do. how many cops do you know who have been stifled from doing their jobs or courts that have released known criminals because there are no legal measures to contain them? the patriot act will go,
Obama has said himself that he supports it. Obama's full quote, is that it gives law enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe. Where have I heard that rhetoric before? Have you read either Patriot Act? I have. It's unnecessary and filled to the brim with rights-grabbing bullsh!t. It's being misused, to boot.
Also, from the ACLU's site:
Quote:
The Patriot Act “updated” surveillance powers – but failed to “update” the checks and balances needed to ensure those surveillance powers include proper judicial oversight.
For example, a roving wiretap follows the target of the surveillance from telephone to telephone. Because there is a greater potential for abuse using roving wiretaps compared to traditional wiretaps, which apply to a single telephone, Congress insisted on important privacy safeguards when, prior to the Patriot Act, it first approved this “updated” surveillance power for criminal investigations.
Section 206 of the Patriot Act created roving wiretaps in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) investigations. Section 206 erodes the basic constitutional rule of particularization by allow the government to obtain “roving wiretaps” without empowering the court to make sure that the government ascertain that the conversations being intercepted actually involve a target of the investigation. Section 206 also created “John Doe” roving wiretaps – wiretaps that need not specify a target or a device such as a telephone.
The failure to include an ascertainment requirement, and the failure to require naming either a target or a device, is what is controversial about section 206 of the Patriot Act. Congress “updated” the surveillance power, but didn’t update the safeguards.
Another example is the use of “pen registers” and “trap and trace” devices to track detailed information about Internet use. Telephone pen/trap orders, as they are known, permit the government to obtain a list of telephone numbers for incoming or outgoing calls with a court order not based on probable cause. However, Internet addressing information reveals much more detail, such as the specific web pages viewed or search terms entered into a search engine. When Congress expanded the government’s power to get pen/trap orders for Internet communications in the Patriot Act, however, these differences between telephone and Internet communications were ignored. Congress failed to specify rules to ensure that the privacy of ordinary Americans web surfing and e-mail habits were protected.
Again, Congress updated the surveillance powers, but not the safeguards.
You can read more here: http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/facts.html
Quote:
but i don't think it has effected too many innocent people at all.
http://www.naturalnews.com/News_0006...ir_travel.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/se...minn-s11.shtml
http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2003/.../21596133.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/df5ewl
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles.../2244247.shtml
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...tionprobe.html
http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5062481.html
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/09/60440
http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog...ard/006482.php
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Rea...A-EB6E119BE547
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-article.html
....there's more, but I think you get the point.
Quote:
it will sunset, but it has to have new laws put into play that will protect ports, airports and entry points into your country and mine. I can live with it until they come up with those laws.
Specifically why does it need these "new laws"? 9/11 was highly preventable.
Quote:
* Refuses to impeach Bush & Co. (and Biden predictably flip flopped on the issue himself. What a difference pre and post election makes) why should he do what people tell him to do?
Because he's a public servant? Because a majority of his voters want Bush impeached? Because no one is above the law? Prior to the election, Biden agreed that it's important to investigate because no one is above the law. Magically his opinion changed afterwards. What a coincidence...
Quote:
he's the president and he'll take things under advisement
His response on this issue wasn't one of advisement, it's a cop-out.
Quote:
and who knows, maybe you'll see Bush and Cheney up for war crimes yet!
He won't.
Quote:
* Won't keep his word on Iraq presumption on your part
Hardly a presumption.
Quote:
* Favors war with Afghanistan and Pakistan [b] dude, I am canadian, a classical liberal and I favour bringing order to those countries in order to get rid of the taliban and other terrorist organizations.
:rolleyes: that won't happen. Let's just end these wars and stop smacking the beehive. We're only making things worse. The Russians tried in their prime, and failed.. The British tried in their prime, and failed....
Obama is wrong on Afghanistan
When Will Obama Give Up The Bin Laden Ghost Hunt?
Why Obama is Wrong
The War on Afghanistan Was Wrong, Too
Quote:
* Already has blood on his hands in Pakistan[b] a couple of drops comparable to what the former president did
Please don't give me a pathetic excuse as a rebuttal. It was wrong then and it is still wrong now. There's no excuse for this.
Quote:
* Gonna "spend us out of debt" (lol)[b] like how bush did?
David, listen, I really don't want to be snarky enemies; I'd much rather polite, informed conversation. But I must say...... please stop injecting this "but Bush" bullsh!t. I don't like Bush any and I criticized him from day one, and 8 years of "But Clinton" really should of been enough for you to know better, man...
I am not talking about big spending, that's a separate issue. My issue here, is that Obama has said he plans on spending us out of debt, which I think is a load of garbage. He's feeding the fire instead of putting it out.
Quote:
* Appointed Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State... of all people.. Hillary is powerful, got 18 million votes from her supporters and carries a lot of voices of voting america with her into that position
She's also a war hawk
What the Clinton Appointment Means
Quote:
* HUGE spender favoring bailouts uh, the bailouts were forged by the GOP, I wouldn't cast blame on his senatorial vote in that regard, even if he did vote against, it would have happened and again, enjoy your dinner and the home you live in for it
I'm sorry, that's a red herring David. I am fully aware of the fact that it would have gone through without Obama. My criticism, is his support for it. It's bullsh!t and just about everyone except for maybe the most die-hard fan of Bush knows that.
Quote:
* Pals around with Zbigniew Brzezinski him and every other former president.
Exactly how is that a rebuttal of my criticism? Aren't we a little old for accepting "everyone else does it"?