Obama Euphoria Ends

[grandpa]

Quote by: Robert Marsh II However, others will receive: Like tough bullies who are not really debating, but rather in attempting to spread a false and unrealistic doctrine.

While we're discussing "doctrines", just remember: It's best to treat others the way you would like to be treated yourself.

You seem to portray Obama as conducive to another terrorist attack, which makes Obama supporters (myself excluded, for the most part) feel like they are being bullied. You should either come out and (a) say that you think Obama will allow terrorism, or (b) say it's not what you are suggesting. This would be better than leading others to assume things.

I would like to note how absolutely crazy US foreign policy has become, and how the US can actually do very little to prevent things from getting worse. While we claim to object to terrorism and certain weapons falling into "the wrong hands," we should consider Pakistan, which has a nuclear policy that, to any sane American, has become a liability rather than an asset.

Grandpa h.

[Robert Marsh II]

grandpa,

Too bad you didn't chastise the Obama cyber-botnet bullies back when and to date . . . . Or have you yet!?

I pick 'c' clarification, which states that I prefer to view (according to most media sources) Obama as being absolutely against terrorism; however, due to his lack of practical experience in foreign affairs . . . .etc., that there exists in the slightest of chances for a WMD attack falling through the cracks.

Obama does not possess the experience to pull-off the 'dream' ---- yes there will be change, but to what extent will this be perceived as acceptable to most???

I further view Barack Obama as being groomed for the position as U.S. president, but whatever the plans were, they don't seem to be working very well --- indeed!

And I agree, Pakistan is the wild-card of liability --- of the most dangerous kind!!!

===========

Obama's Asian Tour Raises More Questions Than Answers : >>>>

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Domestic Policy Fights Limit Obama's Reach During Trip - WSJ.com

[lukas8u]

Do you people know what you are even talking about? Things don't come from a mess to perfect, or even good, in 9 months. While you already made sarcastic remarks about it, it doesn't change the fact that Obama DID receive a most toxic mess.

Also- Just because you picked up an article of Newsweek, doesn't mean you know anything about Pakistan. The chances of an implosion to the point that terroists could obtain WMD's in Pakistan is slim. I also find it interesting that nobody was raising alarm bells about this subject before Obama came into office..

[Robert Marsh II]

President Barack Obama only does the correct thing by changing his directions for the better, once he is caught and pressured by the public media into capitulating!

But that does not obviously always work, because there has been limited attempts to make good with many of his Campaign 2008 promises.

The media and segments of the general public are beginning to see him as just another politician out for number one!

"He loves to do a little dance, and give a little side-step" ---- Shine Us On!!!

And in regards to Pakistan --- plus any other like-type issue, many of these were brought up by citizens like myself prior, but were shouted down by the kool-aid drooling Obama . . . . you know what and who I mean!

It seems that democracy has been twisted into the self-serving ego, and 'not' allowing for others' opinions and feelings to be heard and also respected.

No Respect = A Spoiled Generation = Disaster Ahead!

==============

Obama News : >>>>

washingtonpost.com

[Robert Marsh II]

All presidents struggle with these issues, and have to come to full-terms with sending men and women to their deaths.

This sound-bite better reflects the actual behind-the-scenes action, than most of the mainstream watered-down media-robots give you in a month!

Why it's time for Obama to take ownership of the war in Afghanistan - By Peter Feaver | Shadow Government

[misterman]

Quote by: Robert Marsh II We may think he is pandering an apology with his bow to the Emperor, but in actuality he is rendering the secret signal for a presidential surrender of his nation. A nation which is being crippled by its massive spiraling out-of-control debt and endless trade deficits, that is becoming further complicated by an internal Jihad (Radical Islamic Holy War)! This same nations' infrastructure, health care system, employment labor force, and its very own independent manufacturing markets are all falling apart like a 5000 year old mummy in a violent car crash!

You could have said the exact same thing a year ago.

The best you can say is that Obama hasn't changed anything yet.

[Robert Marsh II]

Agreed misterman: "Obama hasn't changed anythng yet."

==========

Most Americans oppose the 9/11 terror-trials to be conducted in open court : >>>>

Poll: Most Oppose Terror Trials in Open Court - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

[Angry Citizen]

Most Americans oppose the 9/11 terror-trials to be conducted in open court

It's called following constitutional law. Do you have a problem with the constitution?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Angry Citizen It's called following constitutional law. Do you have a problem with the constitution?

Even without the constitution, these are elementary standards; practical requirements in order to learn the truth of a given issue. You make allegations of improper conduct clear, provide evidence to the accused in a public manner, and give the accused an opportunity to provide counter-evidence to any concerned. And you do so in the least-prejudiced environment possible, within reason. If the general public is indeed opposed to this, then you simply turn to them and tell them why they are wrong.

Grandpa h.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Angry Citizen It's called following constitutional law. Do you have a problem with the constitution?

Please clarify which Article of the constitution covers trials for enemy combatants?

And when in the history of the United States has this "constitutional law" been used prior to this?

When was the last time an enemy combatant was tried in this manner?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Apeman81 Please clarify which Article of the constitution covers trials for enemy combatants? And when in the history of the United States has this "constitutional law" been used prior to this?

So are you arguing that this policy would weaken the bulwark of our Constitution? I'm not a strict constitutionalist, but I fail to see why that would be the case. Constitutional law shouldn't be cited in argument against free trials in any case, of course. It's a dishonest tactic, really. Just admit you want tyrannical standards, in which anyone can be falsely charged with a crime -- or even falsely imprisoned with facing formal charges -- and held without the ability to prove one's innocence in a public forum. Say that and I will have a bit more respect for your honesty.

Grandpa h.

[Angry Citizen]

Please clarify which Article of the constitution covers trials for enemy combatants?

14th amendment guaranteeing due process.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"Enemy combatants" ... this is not a war. This is a criminal action. They did not commit an act of war. They committed a well-planned mass murder. Surely you wouldn't expect Timothy McVeigh to be tried in military court?

When was the last time an enemy combatant was tried in this manner?

There is no such thing as an "enemy combatant". There is, however, a prisoner of war. This is, again, not a war. We are under no threat from these people. Ergo, these people are neither enemy combatants nor prisoners of war.

Oh, edit:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This actually makes it apply to the federal government. And to cut off your "except in time of war or public danger" reply, "public danger" does not include mass murder. This would include something outside the bounds of war, such as the impressment of sailors into British navies in the War of 1812, and in general an act from an enemy state. These people are not governed by a nation-state. Ergo, they are criminals. There is no danger from these people. None, at all. You have given in to ridiculous fear-mongering. One would think a terrorist was hiding in every alley with a suitcase nuke ready to blow...

[grandpa]

Quote by: Angry Citizen 14th amendment guaranteeing due process. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Even though the language is fairly clear, some will bend the law to their own agenda.
We've seen it throughout history.
According to USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky: "The Rehnquist
court almost never use[d] equal protection jurisprudence except in striking down affirmative action programs. I can't think of a single instance where Scalia or
Thomas has found discrimination against a racial minority or
women or the aged or the disabled to be unconstitutional."

For a similar example, I cite how no politician demanded racial profiling in the aftermath of Timothy McVeigh. But, if a Muslim or "middle-eastern-looking" type is accused, all Muslims and middle-eastern-looking types can be scrutinized. "Equal protection" my buttocks.

Grandpa h.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Robert Marsh II President Barack Obama only does the correct thing by changing his directions for the better, once he is caught and pressured by the public media into capitulating! But that does not obviously always work, because there has been limited attempts to make good with many of his Campaign 2008 promises. The media and segments of the general public are beginning to see him as just another politician out for number one! "He loves to do a little dance, and give a little side-step" ---- Shine Us On!!! And in regards to Pakistan --- plus any other like-type issue, many of these were brought up by citizens like myself prior, but were shouted down by the kool-aid drooling Obama . . . . you know what and who I mean! It seems that democracy has been twisted into the self-serving ego, and 'not' allowing for others' opinions and feelings to be heard and also respected. No Respect = A Spoiled Generation = Disaster Ahead! ============== Obama News : >>>> washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

THe funny thing is that all of your hyperbole could easily be mistaken for the former administration but then I doubt you said dick for the last 8 years... I take that back, from 2000 to 2006, I'm sure you fell out of the woodwork as soon as the dems got the majority in Congress. And really, hyperbole is all you have.. oh and rightwing blogs.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Apeman81 Please clarify which Article of the constitution covers trials for enemy combatants? And when in the history of the United States has this "constitutional law" been used prior to this? When was the last time an enemy combatant was tried in this manner?

Considering that no declaration of war was approved by congress, they are not enemy combatants but rather, criminals.

I really think the neocons are deathly afraid of allowing these men to stand trial in civil court because the Cheney admin broke so many laws that they don't want trial lawyers digging it all up. Perhaps KSM would get off because he was tortured... see how breaking the law can really screw you down the line?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Considering that no declaration of war was approved by congress, they are not enemy combatants but rather, criminals. I really think the neocons are deathly afraid of allowing these men to stand trial in civil court because the Cheney admin broke so many laws that they don't want trial lawyers digging it all up. Perhaps KSM would get off because he was tortured... see how breaking the law can really screw you down the line?

Were American Soldiers captured on the battlefield in Vietnam not POWS?

Show me the declaration war.

The depths of BS to which you will stoop is amazing!

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Apeman81 Were American Soldiers captured on the battlefield in Vietnam not POWS? Show me the declaration war. The depths of BS to which you will stoop is amazing!

Watch this... ready? I decided to call the GOP the, Conservative Christian Coalition Party. Now we must all use that term because I said it. Just like someone first called an American captured in Vietnam a "Prisoner of War". Are CCCP and POW exactly correct? Nope. Does it matter? Nope. It conveys the message effectively though.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Watch this... ready? I decided to call the GOP the, Conservative Christian Coalition Party. Now we must all use that term because I said it. Just like someone first called an American captured in Vietnam a "Prisoner of War". Are CCCP and POW exactly correct? Nope. Does it matter? Nope. It conveys the message effectively though.

More blather!

This is not about what you personally decide to call them, it is about their actual, recognized, legal status.

Their legal status was POW. Yet no "declaration of war" (please define this by the way) that you seem to clamor for was made.

Perhaps because there is no legal requirement for what you term a declaration of war. From Wikipedia “In the United States, Congress which makes the rules for the military has the power under the Constitution to "declare War," however there is no prescribed legal format for what a War declaration will look like in the US Constitution or by law. Declarations have the force of law and are intended to be executed by a Commander in Chief when called into actual service. The last time United States passed a bill with the title "Declaration of War" was in 1942, against Romania. Since then, the United States has used the term "Authorization to use Military Force”

You know, like in S.J. Res 23

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes (sic) any requirement of the War Powers Resolution

Congress authorized the war on terror. According to our constitution and our laws.

Seriously, your "arguments" are vapid.

[Robert Marsh II]

I knew that if some groomed-unknown-senator arose rapidly to the presidency, with 'NO' previous exceptional 'kudos of greatness', that there would be a major downfall in the making.

Since the Chicago Syndicate appears to be running the White House, and Obama is too busy trying to find his wallet, then there must not be enough time to accomplish our public mandate!?!?

The reason President Obama failed to accomplish anything of real value on his Asian tour, has been blamed on the abscence of his hard-armed wife Michelle, who could have and would have thrown the fear of God almighty into their intimidating far-eastern minds.

*Note: Michelle is much more ferocious than the Tong will EVER even think of becoming!!!!!!!

"Enter the Dragon"?

More like 'Beware of that Dragon'!!!

When Obama bent over in his infamous 'bow' to the Emperor, I believe he was expecting something rather special from behind by the attending entourage!?!?

It makes you wonder, doesn't it?

On a more serious note :

Washington D.C. in general is fed up with Obama's planning or non-planning, whatever the case may truly be, and to prove that the Obama euphoria is officially over in the predictive curve . . . . . . .

It's Clobbering Time For Barama!!! -- (Read Article) : >>>>

Obama Faces Angry Congress Over Economic Woes - Asks for Geithner to Resign - Washington Post


Angry Congress Lashes Out At Obama Over Economic Woes - msnbc.com

Asian Tour Accomplished Little - CBS

[Robert Marsh II]

Economists have written a letter to President Barack Obama in regard to Health Care Reform ---

He will neeed all the help he can get!!!

Economists’ Letter to Obama on Health Care Reform - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com