Obama's record in office

[RanzB]

How many americans have had indefinite detention and no recourse to a lawyer under this act?

Unless my google skills have failed me the total is.... 0.

Hasn't passed, and Forrest has struck it down. Obama has said that he would not use it to imprison US citizens without a trial, but future preisdents might, and no one really thinks Romney would repeal this.


That's another reason I'd vote Obama. He doesn't nominate yes-sir judges.

 

[agerbon]

How many americans have had indefinite detention and no recourse to a lawyer under this act?

Unless my google skills have failed me the total is.... 0.

Yes but it leaves the door open to it.

 

[empirex]

Lol. Firstly, you're assuming Romney won't be like his predecessors and demand indefinite detention for US prisoners either. He has said that he will be fully committed to more war if he's elected, and with his base moving more and more right, I think that would be inevitable.

I assume nothing about Romney... how many times do I have to say that I think he will be a disaster as US president.

Further, it is you who assumes that Romney will demand indefinite incarceration for US citizens. Can you not see that?
It is quite clear that Obama DOES demand indefinite detention for US citizens, in fact it was him that demanded that specific piece of legislation be written into the bill!!!

You can look at it from an American point of view, but I'm not American, so what I see is that ANY indefinite detention without trial is wrong, not just this one. Did you forget who opened Gitmo in the first place?

Ok, so if any indefinite detention without trial is wrong (which goes without saying), how can you continue to support Obama, when that is his exact position, and is even fighting it in court. In fact appealing it in court!!!?

Lastly, I don't appreciate your hit and run style of posting. You post fallacies here, and when called on it you disappear, only to pop up again when it suits you.

Say what? What fallacy is this you speak of; NDAA, what are you talking about?

 

[empirex]

How many americans have had indefinite detention and no recourse to a lawyer under this act?

Unless my google skills have failed me the total is.... 0.

That is so far off the point!

How would you feel if Zuma implemented such a law?

 

[RanzB]

I assume nothing about Romney... how many times do I have to say that I think he will be a disaster as US president.

Think he'll be a disaster as president: Still prefer him over Obama. Weird.

Further, it is you who assumes that Romney will demand indefinite incarceration for US citizens. Can you not see that?
It is quite clear that Obama DOES demand indefinite detention for US citizens, in fact it was him that demanded that specific piece of legislation be written into the bill!!!

For the second time, it doesn't matter to me who the indefinite detention applies to. Why should a US citizen be more deserving of no detention without trial? Romney has said that he is in favour of doubling the size of Gitmo.

Ok, so if any indefinite detention without trial is wrong (which goes without saying), how can you continue to support Obama, when that is his exact position, and is even fighting it in court. In fact appealing it in court!!!?

I told you this before: I don't support all of Obama's policies. However, I do support most of them over Romney's idiotic policies. Those policies he deigns to actually share of course.

This policy? Sure, I think it's a bad idea. I think Romney would be worse.

Say what? What fallacy is this you speak of; NDAA, what are you talking about?

Your 'list' above. Most of which are nonsense, yet even after you edited them, a lot of those nonsense 'facts' are still not relevant to Obama. Comparing people's worth before the recession, then after the recession, then laying the blame solely at Obama's door. Lol.

 

[empirex]

Think he'll be a disaster as president: Still prefer him over Obama. Weird.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous.
From all that I've ever said on the boards, how did you ever come to that conclusion Why do you put words in my mouth?

You once asked me who I would prefer given no other choice (ie. if someone put a gun to my head would be about the only time) -- I said Romney because in this case the devil you know (Obama) is worse than the devil you don't know (Romney). Please don't use some hypothetical you erected to put words in my mouth, it's ridiculous.

I would sooner put a gun to Romney's head than vote for him. Got it?

For the second time, it doesn't matter to me who the indefinite detention applies to. Why should a US citizen be more deserving of no detention without trial? Romney has said that he is in favour of doubling the size of Gitmo.

Who said US citizens are more deserving?
My point is that Obama is building upon what George W Bush started. Rather than turning back the tyranny, Obama is further extending it!

I told you this before: I don't support all of Obama's policies. However, I do support most of them over Romney's idiotic policies. Those policies he deigns to actually share of course.

Obama's policies have failed.

This policy? Sure, I think it's a bad idea. I think Romney would be worse.

Your 'list' above. Most of which are nonsense, yet even after you edited them, a lot of those nonsense 'facts' are still not relevant to Obama. Comparing people's worth before the recession, then after the recession, then laying the blame solely at Obama's door. Lol.

The list was a list of "Shocking Facts", not all of them applied to Obama's presidency, I admitted as much and deleted those I felt weren't relevant.

I hope you're right about Obama, but I'm pretty sure if he get's in the US will fall.

 

[RanzB]

Are you being deliberately disingenuous.
From all that I've ever said on the boards, how did you ever come to that conclusion Why do you put words in my mouth?

You once asked me who I would prefer given no other choice (ie. if someone put a gun to my head would be about the only time) -- I said Romney because in this case the devil you know (Obama) is worse than the devil you don't know (Romney). Please don't use some hypothetical you erected to put words in my mouth, it's ridiculous.

Look, you just said it again. Of the two, you would back Romney, if you had to. No? Nowhere in my post did I say you support Romney, in fact you might remember a post where I defended you from both being racist by supporting Romney over Obama and supporting Romney by itself. But, as I said, if given a stark choice, you would choose Romney.

Who said US citizens are more deserving?
My point is that Obama is building upon what George W Bush started. Rather than turning back the tyranny, Obama is further extending it!

You kept harping on about the indefinite detention of US citizens. On your other point, I'm not going to keep saying the same thing I did when you brought this up: It's a horrible act. Stop arguing like I said I support it.

At the very least, Obama tried to shut down GB. Romney wants to double it.

Obama's policies have failed.

Your opinion, and you're right on some of them. But on the whole he is a sh.itload better than Bush, and has better ideas than Romney.

Your alternative is? Johnson?

The list was a list of "Shocking Facts", not all of them applied to Obama's presidency, I admitted as much and deleted those I felt weren't relevant.

There are still points there that have no reason to be.

I hope you're right about Obama, but I'm pretty sure if he get's in the US will fall.

That's what they said four years ago. The country is in recovery, so if it continues its course and they can have some sort of bipartisan building, I expect it to be OK.

 

[empirex]

Look, you just said it again. Of the two, you would back Romney, if you had to. No? Nowhere in my post did I say you support Romney, in fact you might remember a post where I defended you from both being racist by supporting Romney over Obama and supporting Romney by itself. But, as I said, if given a stark choice, you would choose Romney.

No Randhir. Listen to what I'm saying???

I would not choose either of them. I would sooner shoot him in the head than vote for him. How much more clearer do I have to state it. You're asking me whether I would like to eat a pile of horse manure or cow manure. Neither.

You kept harping on about the indefinite detention of US citizens. On your other point, I'm not going to keep saying the same thing I did when you brought this up: It's a horrible act. Stop arguing like I said I support it.

At the very least, Obama tried to shut down GB. Romney wants to double it.

My point is, it's not a "horrible act". It's quite possibly the most tyrannical piece of legislation ever to be drawn up in the US, certainly worse than anything Bush signed into law. This speaks volumes about who Obama is, not what he says.

Your opinion, and you're right on some of them. But on the whole he is a sh.itload better than Bush, and has better ideas than Romney.

Your alternative is? Johnson?

Yes.

There are still points there that have no reason to be.

That's what they said four years ago. The country is in recovery, so if it continues its course and they can have some sort of bipartisan building, I expect it to be OK.

Recovery? You're joking right.
More spending than ever before; the debt just went past 16 trillion; more funds being pumped into Gitmo; more funds pumped into Afghanistan; more people on food stamps. The country is in free-fall.

Obama or Romney? No difference at all really, just a matter of how fast it all will collapse.

 

[RanzB]

No Randhir. Listen to what I'm saying???

I would not choose either of them. I would sooner shoot him in the head than vote for him. How much more clearer do I have to state it. You're asking me whether I would like to eat a pile of horse manure or cow manure. Neither.

You chose one. You're welcome to change your position. A preference is always preference.

My point is, it's not a "horrible act". It's quite possibly the most tyrannical piece of legislation ever to be drawn up in the US, certainly worse than anything Bush signed into law. This speaks volumes about who Obama is, not what he says.

Wrong. Bush led a country into two wars that had horrible consequences for both his own country and millions of other people. If you think that's worse than what Obama has done, you have a weird perspective.

Yes.

Then I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. None of us have sway over this election, and Johnson will not win.

I have to say, I don't agree with his politics either. Not to mention, he was a Republican not long ago.

Recovery? You're joking right.
More spending than ever before; the debt just went past 16 trillion; more funds being pumped into Gitmo; more funds pumped into Afghanistan; more people on food stamps. The country is in free-fall.

Yes, recovery. The economy is getting better, there's jobs on the increase. Obama is committed to withdrawal of Afghanistan by 2014, they're out of Iraq. Foreign nationals respect Obama much more than they did Bush, or indeed, Romney. He's helped the auto industry back on their feet. He's made the US more green-compliant. There's more.

The debt is a long term solution which requires that one party either have a complete say on, or there's an effort on both sides. Have you heard of John Boehner?

 

[WilD_CaT]

How many americans have had indefinite detention and no recourse to a lawyer under this act?

Unless my google skills have failed me the total is.... 0.

Clearly you don't get it.

The entire point of the act is to allow the state to act swiftly to counter-terrorism. The act allows the state to ignore the basic principles of a legal system such as due process so that there is no "legal" delay when confronting terrorists.

It is as terrible as any legislation that ignores due process.

Once detained, the detainees are allowed to appeal and the US State has to present evidence to substantiate keeping the prisoner, but this is after the fact.

I.E. They do not need a judges permission to arrest and detain someone.

There was a detainee who was set to be released due to being innocent, but the government is so inept they didn't release him, and he eventually died in prison.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dead-gitmo-detainee-supposed-to-be-released-in-2010-2012-9

People responsible should be culpable for his death.

 

[WilD_CaT]

In addition to this, as far as I am aware, you technically cannot sue the state for imprisoning you.

I.E. You can be captured and held for 10 years, released due to being innocent (not enough evidence) and you cannot sue the state to compensate you for 10 lost years...

Could be wrong on this, and I know people have tried, but if people could sue the state it would open the US government to perhaps hundreds of multi million dollar law suits and I don't think that would be politically acceptable, hence the legislation prevents it.

PS: Once of the people who was released, turned out to be a terrorist and since then Obama has put a freeze on certain detainees being returned to their home countries... (I.E. Because person X is bad, Obama believes he is justified in punishing everyone else)

PPS: It must be noted that the Republicans are the biggest opposition to detainees being released, not Obama or the Dem's. So on the above score they are FAR worse....still Obama isn't a saint.

 

[RanzB]

There was a detainee who was set to be released due to being innocent, but the government is so inept they didn't release him, and he eventually died in prison.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dead-gitmo-detainee-supposed-to-be-released-in-2010-2012-9

I agree with most of what you said, not sure why you had to lie about the above though. A court overturned his release last year.

 

[empirex]

You chose one. You're welcome to change your position. A preference is always preference.

WTF man, seriously.
You're asking if I would prefer to have my left leg or right leg chopped off.. NEITHER is my answer.

Wrong. Bush led a country into two wars that had horrible consequences for both his own country and millions of other people. If you think that's worse than what Obama has done, you have a weird perspective.

Uum, I said legislation signed into law?

I never mentioned wars, overseas drone strikes or military intervention in sovereign countries. Comparing war crimes is another matter.

I was talking about the most authoritarian piece of legislation ever written into US law.

Then I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. None of us have sway over this election, and Johnson will not win.

I have to say, I don't agree with his politics either. Not to mention, he was a Republican not long ago.

We're having a debate on the merits of the US candidates, what you doing?

Yes, recovery. The economy is getting better, there's jobs on the increase. Obama is committed to withdrawal of Afghanistan by 2014, they're out of Iraq. Foreign nationals respect Obama much more than they did Bush, or indeed, Romney. He's helped the auto industry back on their feet. He's made the US more green-compliant. There's more.

The debt is a long term solution which requires that one party either have a complete say on, or there's an effort on both sides. Have you heard of John Boehner?

A slight increase in low-paying jobs is about all you can give Obama on that list.

Yes they shipped troops out of Iraq; and sent them straight to Afghanistan.

Respect? The ME, Europe, Africa? And you base this on what?

That grandiose claim made by Obama about the auto industry is hogwash. I suggest you do your homework, there were contributions from both Democrats and Republicans. Obama was not the sole saviour of the auto industry.

Granted the debt is complex but it doesn't remove from the fact that Obama is the most expensive president.

 

[RanzB]

WTF man, seriously.
You're asking if I would prefer to have my left leg or right leg chopped off.. NEITHER is my answer.

You said it, not me.

Uum, I said legislation signed into law?

I never mentioned wars, overseas drone strikes or military intervention in sovereign countries. Comparing war crimes is another matter.

I was talking about the most authoritarian piece of legislation ever written into US law.

Not sure how you can separate the two. In any case, you're attempting to shift the goalposts. Your quote:

It's quite possibly the most tyrannical piece of legislation ever to be drawn up in the US, certainly worse than anything Bush signed into law.

This includes the resolution to invade Iraq.


I think you also forget that Bush was the one to open GB in the first place. For some reason you think Obama is worse because he'd like to include US citizens in the field of people eligible for detention without trial. I think both are horrible.

We're having a debate on the merits of the US candidates, what you doing?

You're saying that both are equally bad for the US and backing Johnson. I'm saying he's irrelevant, and that Romney is not the same as Obama.

A slight increase in low-paying jobs is about all you can give Obama on that list.

Nope. When Bush left office, they were leaking 750 000 jobs a month. Now they are adding jobs, which means they reversed that figure to zero and added jobs on top of that.

Are you saying that only low-paying jobs were added? Only low-paying? Can I have a source for this please?

Yes they shipped troops out of Iraq; and sent them straight to Afghanistan.

Source please that they redeployed all Iraq forces to Afghanistan.

Respect? The ME, Europe, Africa? And you base this on what?

If you bothered to read my post properly, you'll see a link there.

That grandiose claim made by Obama about the auto industry is hogwash. I suggest you do your homework, there were contributions from both Democrats and Republicans. Obama was not the sole saviour of the auto industry.

Did I say Obama was the sole saviour? Did I really?

Granted the debt is complex but it doesn't remove from the fact that Obama is the most expensive president.

And you think the debt that was in place when he took office had nothing to do with it? Making definite statements without accounting for circumstances is silly.


I see you've conveniently tried to slide out of the conversation about your list.

 

[WilD_CaT]

I agree with most of what you said, not sure why you had to lie about the above though. A court overturned his release last year.

The US appealed the order for his release and the supreme court overturned his release. He then died.

The point, which you missed, is that he wasn't convicted of anything yet spent ten years in prison and eventually died there...there is no due process and there is no justice.

No one should defend this legal system.

 

[RanzB]

The point, which you missed, is that he wasn't convicted of anything yet spent ten years in prison and eventually died there...there is no due process and there is no justice.

Horrible yes.. How is this inept? :wtf:

 

[empirex]

You said it, not me.

facepalm

Not sure how you can separate the two. In any case, you're attempting to shift the goalposts. Your quote:

This includes the resolution to invade Iraq.

I think you also forget that Bush was the one to open GB in the first place. For some reason you think Obama is worse because he'd like to include US citizens in the field of people eligible for detention without trial. I think both are horrible.

No, I think so far Bush was far worse than Obama on a global scale. Iraq, Gitmo, telling bold-faced lies to the UN, telling Hans Blix to shove it.
In terms of internal US laws this by far out does anything Bush signed in, and given that the Patriot Act was signed just following 9/11, whereas Obama signed NDAA into law at 12pm midnight on New Years.

- Also remember that the White House removed language that would have protected Americans from Section 1031 of NDAA. That is f***** up.

- This is just yet one of many campaign promises that Obama has broken.

“With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities,” reports the New York Times.

Despite the fact that Obama campaigned on the platform of eliminating abuse of executive powers which occurred under Bush, he is on course (could have exceeded already - Empire) to pass more executive orders than Bush did during his eight years in the White House.

Much of Obama's campaign ran on decrying Bush's actions while president, yet he repeats and even now betters that which Bush done. Shocking.

You're saying that both are equally bad for the US and backing Johnson. I'm saying he's irrelevant, and that Romney is not the same as Obama.

Virtually the same, yes. Minor differences maybe, but ultimately the same.
Unfortunately yes, Johnson will prove to be irrelevant as the US voters once again get caught up in the soap opera that is the left / right paradigm, not realising that both parties have failed. They're hopelessly caught in the two-party trap, and this will ultimately lead to the US's downfall.

Nope. When Bush left office, they were leaking 750 000 jobs a month. Now they are adding jobs, which means they reversed that figure to zero and added jobs on top of that.

Are you saying that only low-paying jobs were added? Only low-paying? Can I have a source for this please?

I'll take your word on that, and find the source at the same time.

Source please that they redeployed all Iraq forces to Afghanistan.

It was a figure of speech. In other words they might have pulled forces out of Iraq, but at the same time they have also been sending more troops back into Afghanistan, or do you dispute this?

If you bothered to read my post properly, you'll see a link there.

Well, according to your link Europeans like him but not much of the ME.
But perhaps if unmanned drone strikes were taking place in Europe killing innocent people, they might change their views about Obama?

Did I say Obama was the sole saviour? Did I really?

So why raise it as a plus for Obama if it was group effort?

And you think the debt that was in place when he took office had nothing to do with it? Making definite statements without accounting for circumstances is silly.

No, but you can account for HIS actions, and what he has done while in office.

I see you've conveniently tried to slide out of the conversation about your list.

Well you dismissed most of them as not being relevant to Obama, so what's left to discuss?


Oh and this pretty well sums up NDAA:



Hope is all you have left; no rights, no recourse.

 

[RanzB]

facepalm



No, I think so far Bush was far worse than Obama on a global scale. Iraq, Gitmo, telling bold-faced lies to the UN, telling Hans Blix to shove it.
In terms of internal US laws this by far out does anything Bush signed in, and given that the Patriot Act was signed just following 9/11, whereas Obama signed NDAA into law at 12pm midnight on New Years.

- Also remember that the White House removed language that would have protected Americans from Section 1031 of NDAA. That is f***** up.

- This is just yet one of many campaign promises that Obama has broken.



Much of Obama's campaign ran on decrying Bush's actions while president, yet he repeats and even now betters that which Bush done. Shocking.



Virtually the same, yes. Minor differences maybe, but ultimately the same.
Unfortunately yes, Johnson will prove to be irrelevant as the US voters once again get caught up in the soap opera that is the left / right paradigm, not realising that both parties have failed. They're hopelessly caught in the two-party trap, and this will ultimately lead to the US's downfall.



I'll take your word on that, and find the source at the same time.



It was a figure of speech. In other words they might have pulled forces out of Iraq, but at the same time they have also been sending more troops back into Afghanistan, or do you dispute this?



Well, according to your link Europeans like him but not much of the ME.
But perhaps if unmanned drone strikes were taking place in Europe killing innocent people, they might change their views about Obama?



So why raise it as a plus for Obama if it was group effort?



No, but you can account for HIS actions, and what he has done while in office.



Well you dismissed most of them as not being relevant to Obama, so what's left to discuss?


Oh and this pretty well sums up NDAA:

View attachment 18643

Hope is all you have left; no rights, no recourse.

We're obviously not going to agree on this.

 

[empirex]

We're obviously not going to agree on this.

True.

So my question boils down to this:

- NDAA is the absolute rejection of everything that is liberty and freedom.
- Considering it was Obama that removed the language that would have protected Americans citizens from from Section 1031 of the NDAA.
- Combine this with the fact that his Defence Minister asserts that Obama can circumvent congress to launch wars (if this exchange doesn't send chills down your spine then I don't know) or invasions of another country....


Given the above how could you even consider supporting a man who would circumvent congress and implement such laws as the NDAA?

Surely the sane choice is to reject both of them.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Horrible yes.. How is this inept? :wtf:

Ugh, hate strawmans.

It's a stupid law that undermines due process, stop defending it and those who promote it.