Obama's second term
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
londonfog
Well-Known Member
nopedoes the right ever get anything right?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Well, Buck, there's your answer. The second term will mean that we won't have Mitt and the Rupukes hurting our lifestyle even more, AND we'll have all of these neo-con redneck sheeple RIU members whining while repeating their faux news rhetoric.
NAILED IT!
https://www.rollitup.org/t/fox-news-enter-at-your-own-risk.874515/
lefties are always right, and righties are always wrong. it's empirical.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
still waiting for that first obamacare non-compliance shooting.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
nope, health care costs are growing at their slowet rate in decades, obamacare slowed the growth of health care costs.
polls show we are no the most respected nation on earth.
you guys have been prattling on about that for years, still hasn't happened.
recreationally legal in 4 states and counting now.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
does the right ever get anything right?
You might want to learn to read. I said nothing about numbers. Although I guess you're technically correct in that FDR, another authoritarian favorite, probably issued the worst of the worst (Japanese Internment). The first executive order came from Washington and he ordered his subordinates to report on their current status. That's the kind of thing executive orders are intended for. He actually got a lot of flack for stating that the United States was going to have neutral or positive relations with England and France during the time. And that's policy, not even law per say. My how things have shifted eh?
There have been Presidents who have tried, and largely failed (FDR did successfully intern the Japanese for example, it was later ruled illegal however) - to write law, in the past. But they were more exceptions in that most of their orders were not of that nature.
A large % of Obama's orders are basically writing law or attempting to write law and establish policy.
Anyway, the explosion in the use of these basically came with the Federal Reserve, and much larger government. Not coincidentally. But more government, rah rah rah, right? Gotta love authoritarianism.
bearkat42
Well-Known Member
And this started with Obama? Or do illegal wars not count?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
That was the Bush 43 administration.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
The Bush administration never put forward the argument that they could legally kill citizens without judicial oversight. Eric Holder gave a speech about it at Northwestern clearly stating that due process and judicial process aren't the same thing and that due process was established in the case of every American killed.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Your mind set for this discussion is awful. This is not a left vs right issue. This is a simple statement of facts. Illegal wars are awful too in their own right. Saying you can legally kill citizens of your own country without judicial oversight? That's unprecedented in your country.
bearkat42
Well-Known Member
You're correct about that. The Dubya administration never put forward an argument about anything. They just did it.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
As far as I know they did not actively target American citizens for execution without any judicial process either, even though yeah, a lot of Americans inevitably will die when you go to war. But if you're aware of examples where they did, I'm all ears. It wouldn't surprise me if they did it and it simply hasn't come out yet or I've missed it.
Bush is a war criminal. Obama is too. As long as we keep the framing as - well he did it so my guy can do it too - well, we're all gonna lose.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
not unprecedented at all.
bearkat42
Well-Known Member
It's not even close to "unprecedented" in this country. The American government has ALWAYS done whatever the fuck they've wanted to. You're just foolish to think that it started with Obama. Do you really think that a government that would start an illegal war, would have a problem with killing an American citizen? Come on man, you're better than that.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
americans have been killed by their government with no judicial process whatsoever during every war.
in the south, the judicial process for blacks accused of a crime was in no way an actual judicial process. many were hung despite this.
but "those people" don't count to someone like ogogogoevvevevelleggeniiosis. big rawn pawl fan, if ya know what i mean.
bearkat42
Well-Known Member
Used to get?
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Yeah, it is.
Wars, typically, are declared through a legal process. Now if you want to argue that virtually every military action in recent memory has been illegal, by all means. I'll agree. But the intention is certainly not to kill the troops going to war. It is an inevitable cost, but it's not the intention. I doubt if many Presidents and Congress wouldn't prefer 0 soldiers died for every war they declare. It would be a lot easier to declare them. But this is a lot different than saying that they can legally assassinate an American. Again, intentions.
As far as your insinuation I don't care about past wrongs - ok. If that's the best argument you have, I guess I've already won.
Moving on.
Similar threads
