Obama dispises liberty

[McCulloch]

Obama's election could be punishment for an evil nation.

Or a reward to a nation coming to its senses.

Only if you despise liberty and support socialism.

Does Obama despise liberty and support socialism? Is he one of those Godless communists?

[East of Eden]

Given recent events, I thought it might be interesting to bring this thread back into view.


Obviously, the military and intelligence agencies of the U.S. have been attempting to locate, and then kill or capture Osama bin Laden for years. This pretty clearly would have gone on regardless of who succeeded Bush and when they did so.

However, Obama clearly made a risky decision in deciding to approve an operation involving military personnel within Pakistan. He easily, and justifiably, could have decided to attempt a drone attack, or decided it was necessary to consult with Pakistan before attempting the operation.

Does this decision not indicate Obama's willingness to take strong and risky action in defense of U.S. liberty and security?

The fact is, if Obama's policies on enhanced interrogation, etc. had been in place when Bush was president, Bin Laden would still be alive. The hypocrite bashes Bush for years on this and then takes credit for the results of Bush's policies. I have no idea what sense it's supposed to make that we can kill terrorists like Bin Laden and others but can't waterboard them, the same thing we do when training US special forces. Obama's AG is actually still investigating those involved in enhanced interrogation. They should be given a medal, not persecuted. I also take issue with Obama's decision not to release Bin Laden's death photo while earlier releasing Abu Gharib photos, probably in an attempt to stick it to Bush. Muslim culture isn't that squeamish, for Pete's sake, they have public beheadings.

If I were dictator I would have captured Bin Laden, waterboarded all the information we could out of him, sold the right to pull the trigger of his firing squad to the highest bidder with the proceeds going to a 9/11 victim's fund, and shrunk his head and put it in the Smithsonian.

[East of Eden]

If Obama was concerned about US security, he would secure the borders. For that reason alone he should be tried for treason.

Absolutely! He is violating his oath to defend the US for political gain. In regard to the OP, that counts as despising liberty, IMHO. Since 9/11 we have only built a fence on one third of our border and yet Obama just cut $266 million from the fence building fund. Apparently the only area he is stingy about is defending the US.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2 ... eam-obama/

Note the southern border sheriff advising US residents to arm themselves because it is so bad there.

[micatala]

Does this decision not indicate Obama's willingness to take strong and risky action in defense of U.S. liberty and security?

If Obama was concerned about US security, he would secure the borders. For that reason alone he should be tried for treason. On this subject, word has it that Panetta had to make the decision becuz Obama wouldn't. He was more than happy to step up to the podium and give his "me, my, I, I, I," speech though.



And no, there's no main stream media report for evidence. Even W had the decency to thank the military and the military only, whereas Obama just thanked himself.

I do not believe most of what you have written here is based in fact.

Obama did very pointedly thank the military and intelligence personnel, and acknowledge the effort they had been putting into this for years. Can you point me to statements where "Obama thanked himself?"

Secondly, Obama has been taking several concrete actions to secure the border, arguably doing more than Bush has. More arrest, more deportations, more border guards.

I think your claim here is entirely off-base.

[micatala]

Given recent events, I thought it might be interesting to bring this thread back into view.


Obviously, the military and intelligence agencies of the U.S. have been attempting to locate, and then kill or capture Osama bin Laden for years. This pretty clearly would have gone on regardless of who succeeded Bush and when they did so.

However, Obama clearly made a risky decision in deciding to approve an operation involving military personnel within Pakistan. He easily, and justifiably, could have decided to attempt a drone attack, or decided it was necessary to consult with Pakistan before attempting the operation.

Does this decision not indicate Obama's willingness to take strong and risky action in defense of U.S. liberty and security?

The fact is, if Obama's policies on enhanced interrogation, etc. had been in place when Bush was president, Bin Laden would still be alive.

THis is nothing more than unevidenced speculation. It most certainly has not been proven that water-boarding was integral to getting the information that led to bin Laden's location, nor that we could have or would have gotten that information in other ways. The fact is, many intelligence experts indicate that other techniques are often more productive, and they don't have the down-side of sullying our image or provoking violence and negative views against our troops.

I will ask, since John McCain is skeptical of these techniques, do you consider him a hypocrite and a despiser of liberty?

I have no idea what sense it's supposed to make that we can kill terrorists like Bin Laden and others but can't waterboard them, the same thing we do when training US special forces.

I read O'Reilly making this same illogical argument.

THere is a difference between violence committed in the field and violence against a prisoner in our custody. You and Bill both ignore that completely.

Following your logic, since it is OK to shoot at an enemy soldier or commander that you run across in the field, we should also allow guard who "run across" enemy combatants in their cells in Guatanamo to simply shoot them.

Obama's AG is actually still investigating those involved in enhanced interrogation. They should be given a medal, not persecuted. I also take issue with Obama's decision not to release Bin Laden's death photo while earlier releasing Abu Gharib photos, probably in an attempt to stick it to Bush. Muslim culture isn't that squeamish, for Pete's sake, they have public beheadings.

If I were dictator I would have captured Bin Laden, waterboarded all the information we could out of him, sold the right to pull the trigger of his firing squad to the highest bidder with the proceeds going to a 9/11 victim's fund, and shrunk his head and put it in the Smithsonian.

First of all, the implication above that Obama was responsible for making photographic evidence of the Abu Ghraib public is a blatant smear, so distorted it should be considered a falsehood, or at the most generous, slanderous propaganda.


Photos of the abuse there were in circulation starting in 2004. More photos came out over the next few years. The wikipedia link below outlines some of the releases, including photos released in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib ... oner_abuse

I would ask East of Eden to explain his statement, given the facts of when photos of the abuses came to light.


Obviously, you can have any opinion you want about what you would do as President. In my opinion, if Bush had not released the bin Laden photos, you would have supported that position. Given the attempt to blame Obama for the Abu Ghraib photos, you pretty clearly are inclined to oppose anything Obama does, simply because it is Obama doing it.

[WinePusher]

Secondly, while I consider Laurence O'Donnell to be highly partisan, and often overly confrontational, he made an interesting point on tonight's show. He pointed out that, without actually using the word Capitalism, the Castro's are taking concrete steps to make Cuba more capitalistic.

He contrasted this with a previous magazine headline on U.S. policy which read "We are all socialists now." THe gist is that the U.S., while being a country with a great deal of capitalism, has long also included many socialistic aspects. These would include programs that even the most conservative Republicans are almost never willing to label as socialist or to advocate the actual elimination of in so many words. These include Medicare and Social Security. Thus, even Republicans accept socialism, they just won't use the term.

If you would just take a look at the history of these programs you list, you would realize that you are wrong. The Social Security Act was passed in the 1960's by a Progressive (aka: an individual who looks upon the initial American system with scorn). The income tax was permenantly implemented by a Progressive in the early 1900's. The creation of Central banking, along with the institution of Anti-Trust Laws came under a Progressive. Government regulatory agencies flourished under New Deal Policies, which were created by a Progressive. And, of course, Public Housing was implemented under the New Deal by FDR and his Socialist Labor Secretary Francis Perkins. So no, Socialism was never intended to be a part of the American System. Progressives forcibly injected these toxins into the American Bloodstream later on in our history and now Modern Day Progressives are claiming that they are part of our Heritage. Yea right.

He closed by simply underscoring the irony. The U.S., even Republicans, actually embrace socialism, but will never admit this explicitly, while the Cubans will probably eventually embrace large doses of capitalism without ever admitting it.

Yea, I probably won't defer the comprehension of the Philosophy of Conservatism to some liberal talking head on a failing 'news' network. Elements of the Republican Party, as demonstrated by their public voting records and political stances, do seem to embrace socialism. They are Republican In Name Only and have no right to the title of Conservative.

[Wyvern]

If you would just take a look at the history of these programs you list, you would realize that you are wrong. The Social Security Act was passed in the 1960's by a Progressive (aka: an individual who looks upon the initial American system with scorn). The income tax was permenantly implemented by a Progressive in the early 1900's. The creation of Central banking, along with the institution of Anti-Trust Laws came under a Progressive. Government regulatory agencies flourished under New Deal Policies, which were created by a Progressive. And, of course, Public Housing was implemented under the New Deal by FDR and his Socialist Labor Secretary Francis Perkins. So no, Socialism was never intended to be a part of the American System. Progressives forcibly injected these toxins into the American Bloodstream later on in our history and now Modern Day Progressives are claiming that they are part of our Heritage. Yea right.

If you would have bothered googling these programs you would have realized that you are wrong. The SSA was passed in 1935 by FDR not the '60's, granted FDR was a progressive so you got that part right although your definition of what a progressive is leaves a lot to be desired. The income tax was permanently implemented by a republican in 1913 and required amending the constitution, not the 1900's or a progressive as you claim. The first central bank was created in 1791 by Washington. How could he look upon the initial system with scorn when he was responsible for the creation of much of the initial system. The first antitrust law was created by a republican senator in 1890 under a republican president. If you consider all these institutions to be progressive then the modern day progressives are correct that such policies are part of our heritage right from the start of our nation. Even more impressive is that these programs you list republicans have been more responsible for than any other political party. Another thing to think about the two agencies that conservatives generally think are the most left leaning in all the federal government(EPA and OSHA) were both created by a republican president(Nixon) by executive order.

Yea, I probably won't defer the comprehension of the Philosophy of Conservatism to some liberal talking head on a failing 'news' network. Elements of the Republican Party, as demonstrated by their public voting records and political stances, do seem to embrace socialism. They are Republican In Name Only and have no right to the title of Conservative.

That's funny, you wont accept the definition of your particular political philosophy from a source that you consider to be against them but on the other hand you freely accept the definition of a political philosophy from a source that is opposed to it. Hypocrisy, it aint just for breakfast anymore.

[East of Eden]

THis is nothing more than unevidenced speculation. It most certainly has not been proven that water-boarding was integral to getting the information that led to bin Laden's location, nor that we could have or would have gotten that information in other ways.

Not according to CIA chief Leon Panetta. What do you know that he doesn't?

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2011/ ... bin-laden/

I will ask, since John McCain is skeptical of these techniques, do you consider him a hypocrite and a despiser of liberty?

Why would he be a hypocrite, he wasn't taking credit for getting Bin Laden.

I read O'Reilly making this same illogical argument.

THere is a difference between violence committed in the field and violence against a prisoner in our custody. You and Bill both ignore that completely.

Waterboarding isn't torture.

Following your logic, since it is OK to shoot at an enemy soldier or commander that you run across in the field, we should also allow guard who "run across" enemy combatants in their cells in Guatanamo to simply shoot them.

Honestly, I wouldn't care if we did execute the Guantanamo vermin, after they ceased to be useful. FDR did exactly that when he caught out of uniform enemy combatants.

First of all, the implication above that Obama was responsible for making photographic evidence of the Abu Ghraib public is a blatant smear, so distorted it should be considered a falsehood, or at the most generous, slanderous propaganda.


Photos of the abuse there were in circulation starting in 2004. More photos came out over the next few years. The wikipedia link below outlines some of the releases, including photos released in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib ... oner_abuse

I would ask East of Eden to explain his statement, given the facts of when photos of the abuses came to light.

You are right, Obama reversed his intent to release the photos, probably after somebody talked some sense into him.

Obviously, you can have any opinion you want about what you would do as President. In my opinion, if Bush had not released the bin Laden photos, you would have supported that position.

No I wouldn't have, and you have no basis for saying that.

Given the attempt to blame Obama for the Abu Ghraib photos, you pretty clearly are inclined to oppose anything Obama does, simply because it is Obama doing it.

I supported his Bin Laden action, but hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Board]

Waterboarding isn't torture.

wrong... again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (an advisory measure of the UN General Assembly) is:
...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture[1]

[East of Eden]

Waterboarding isn't torture.

wrong... again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (an advisory measure of the UN General Assembly) is:
...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture[1]

Nonsense. We waterboard thousands of our special service soldiers during training. Do we torture our own soldiers? Journalists have voluntarily undergone it.

[Board]

Waterboarding isn't torture.

wrong... again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (an advisory measure of the UN General Assembly) is:
...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture[1]

Nonsense. We waterboard thousands of our special service soldiers during training. Do we torture our own soldiers? Journalists have voluntarily undergone it.

For goodness sake READ the definition of torture please...

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession

Journalists volunteered to feel the effects... we were not probing them for information.

Our soldiers go through it to learn how to resist torture... we were not probing them for information.