Obama doesn't deserve reelection

[Semirhage666]

Are you aware Obama wants the gov't to be able to track your location via cell phone data without a warrant?

How is that any worse than the Patriot Act?

We'd have intrusions like that PLUS homophobic and anti-abortion shit going on with McCain.

No matter HOW bad you think Obama is when it comes to civil rights, he's the lesser of 2 evils by far.

 

[Semirhage666]

The majority of Americans are pro-life and believe in the RIGHT to life. It hurt Obama that he voted "present" on partial-birth abortion and talked about his daughter being "punished with a baby".

Obama told the gay community he would be their "fierce advocate" yet refused to support gay marriage and was like an impotent old man who finally pumped himself with enough Viagra to get the DADT repeal discussion started. So what is it Obama? Are you for gay rights or not? Are you going to advocate for gay rights or hide in the shadows? At least a Republican will tell you to your face he doesn't think you're equal . He won't lie to you to get the pink vote.

You may have no respect for fetal human life but some view stem cell research to be a violation of ethics. To many those who support stem cell research are chipping away at the most fundamental human right. The right to life and to exist after you have been created. Your perception of Obama as a champ for rights and liberty is greatly flawed.

And to many people who have a thorough understanding of the process of embryonic development, equating a blastocyst to a person and giving it rights is unethical.

As far as abortion goes, the mother and her rights come first. Plain and simple. You can't infringe on her rights for the sake of something that biologically, lacks the necessary neural connections to feel pain, form thoughts and memories, etc.

 

[NineOfClubs]

^ I can only imagine the outrage if Bush wanted to track us by cellphone.

But it happens now, and it's a big yawn all the way around. What's that about?

 

[NineOfClubs]

Well I think people are more used to these minor infringements and have seen stories where gov't intelligence gathered from phone/email monitoring stopped a potential attack. Now it is considered a matter of daily life. My only concern is that a cell phone can be owned by one person and stolen or used without one's knowledge during a crime. That could wrongly implicate the innocent.

Well, I gave up my cell phone a few months ago.

Don't think I'll get another now that it's become a tracking device....

 

[NineOfClubs]

You could get a disposable one and register it with an alias. Just make sure you pay for it with cash and top-up with those pre-paid cards (oh and buy those with cash too)

Terrorists already do this so I don't know if Obama's policy will do much good.

I knew this.

And I already decided on this as the course, if I get another cell phone....

 

[Ambrocious]

Also be weary of new TV's and other bits of new technology that have RFID technology in them. This is another way of information harvesting. Got anything new lately as far as technology? You better bet it has RFID technology in it.

 

[Semirhage666]

Its not about better or worse. You seemed to be operating under the premise that Obama was no longer chipping away at civil liberties. As I pointed out that premise is flawed. He is actually continuing the chipping. Whether or not Obama's chipping away is better or worse wasn't really my point. Any chipping at rights is dangerous yet sometimes is justified.

The patriot act and Obama's latest measures operate under a simple premise. Infringe on a lesser right to privacy in order to better secure the greater right to life. I happen to respect my right and your right to life so much that I actually support the patriot act and Obama's current measure. I am willing to surrender some of my privacy in order to better safeguard our right to live. Sure I would like my cake and eat it too keeping complete privacy and living in a safe world. That, however, is not reality.

Pretending to know what would of happened under McCain is fortune telling and guess work. Who knows, with Meghan McCain constantly harping on her daddy to "like give gay rights totally, oh my god daddy" maybe gays would have a better shot than with the "fierce advocate" who got limp when push came to shove.
I believe abortion after the 1st trimester should be banned so I'd have no problem with McCain and his desire to secure rights for the unborn. He demonstrated far greater respect for right to life than Obama with his support of partial birth abortion.

Why vote lesser of two evils when you can vote libertarian or some other 3rd party that values what you value.

No. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would sacrifice small liberties in exchange for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." There was no danger that I felt was pressing in my daily life that giving the government access to people's library records was going to make it all better. There still isn't. Then there's random wiretaps & the ability to search without a warrant.

But, oh, wait. I forgot how the government is only there to help, and would only ever take advantage of these rights if they had legitimate concerns about terrorism.

Fuck the Patriot Act up the ass.

The only time partial birth abortions are done, for the simple fact that these are the only instances where doctors are willing to do them, are when the fetus has a terminal illness, or the mother's life is in significant danger from carrying out the pregnancy. 3rd trimester women are not simply changing their minds all of a sudden about wanting a baby. I believe a woman's right to 1) not die and 2) not be forced to give birth to a baby that will suffer endlessly for a few months, then die, supersedes any possible "rights" you could ascribe to a fetus.

And oh, yes. Let me throw my vote away on a 3rd party. Real smart.

 

[Semirhage666]

Once a fetus has developed a nervous system, brain wave activity and heart function he/she is very little different from a person in a coma or someone who is brain dead. However they still have their right to life. You underestimate the development of the fetus in the 2nd and 3rd trimester.
1000s of unborn children later term have been aborted when they were biologically no different than an infant. By supporting life rights killing polices Obama helped to chip away.
Many feel it is unethical for politicians to place a value judgment on what human life is worthy of rights and what human life is disposable. Maybe tomorrow it will be you that is deemed disposable. Perhaps your life will be ended, your organs harvested so that a person deemed more worthy will live.

To many (the majority actually) people like Obama infringe on a greater right to life so that women can keep their lesser right to privacy, or as some would say right to convienence.

I do not underestimate their development. They do not have a complex cerebral cortex, which is the brain structure necessary for consciousness.

The difference is that they have never had the neural capacity for consciousness, while the comatose person has, and still has the necessary brain structures present.

LOL yes. One day we will all be told at 50 that we must die for the greater good. Get real.

 

[NickCole]

And oh, yes. Let me throw my vote away on a 3rd party. Real smart.

How is your vote a "throw away" if you vote for someone who isn't being pushed by the Democratic or Republican parties?

Or, put another way, why do you think your vote is valuable if you vote for Obama or McCain but of no value if you vote for someone else?

 

[tonyboy]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81213-52-say-obama-doesnt-deserve-reelection-

Finally, Americans understand that they have elected another Jimmy Carter.

It took them long enough to realize it.

It was a mistake to elect him in the frist place... I think Obama did make a fine choice in Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State (much as dislike her).. but that was a good appointment..

Holder as Attorney General is diaster.... worse then even Janet Reno.
Obama will win reelection though, unless something comes up late in 2011..

The only good things Obama has done is to keep the policies of G.W. Bush in place (regarding the terror war). aside from those things he is a diaster...

McCain would have made better appointments and held the line of the terrorists.

 

[Semirhage666]

Later, I'm going to have to take a look at how many that are bitching that they want DADT overturned are also people bitching that McCain should have been elected.

 

[CoolBlue71]

It was a mistake to elect him [Barack Obama] in the [first] place.…

Not at all. A mistake would have been to tolerate the Republican Party holding the White House after the disastrous presidency of low-approval George W. Bush. That wasn't about to happen, of course, considering the tide of history was against the incumbent White House party, the GOP.

[Eric] Holder as Attorney General is disaster.... worse then even Janet Reno.…

True that Reno was pretty bad, but there isn't anything disastrous about Eric Holder. At least not yet. The disasters thus far are Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary (for his Wall Street love) and Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff (for his arrogance and dumb dismissal of the left). But the worst Attorney General in recent memory is, no contest, Alberto Gonzales.

The only good things Obama has done is to keep the policies of G.W. Bush in place (regarding the terror war)....

Tell this to … Dick Cheney!

[John] McCain would have made better appointments ….

Like ex-Texas Sen. Phil Gramm [the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act], the McCain campaign's senior economic advisor, who was rumored to be the maverick's Treasury Secretary? The fact that McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate told us enough about [McCain's] judgment.

 

[CoolBlue71]

How is your vote a "throw away" if you vote for someone who isn't being pushed by the Democratic or Republican parties?

Or, put another way, why do you think your vote is valuable if you vote for Obama or McCain but of no value if you vote for someone else?

I have recently watched, again, the 2006 documentary An Unreasonable Man. It is of course about Ralph Nader. One interesting comment came from political commentator Lawrence O'Donnell, who worked for the Democratic Party and is now with MSNBC (he's married to the excellect actress Kathryn Harrold). O'Donnell mentioned that the Democratic Party is real good at not listening to "the left." And that the one way for one on the left to show the Democrats you're serious … is to show them you're willing to refrain from voting Democratic. He's correct. It's true on the Republican side for someone who is on the right, feeling he's not given respect and consideration. Just show them you'll refraining from voting them one's support.

 

[JB3]

Um, he probably has a much better recollection of Carters Presidency than you do.Especially seeing as you weren't even born yet.

But what does he know, he should listen to ''fiercely independent'' right wingers who can't afford gas and still live at home.

What are you on about? He didn't understand the parallels between Obama and Carter, so they were explained to him. You were not a part of that interaction.

 

[pisces_ken02]

Polls and other "stats" are pointless during this point in time. If we judged every President by the first 2 years in office.. not one would have been reelected.

When late 2011 rolls around.. that's when you can properly put his term into context. The next election isn't until November 2012. That is a LONGGG way off. Anything can happen during that time.

 

[NickCole]

Ben Franklin is not the holy grail of all that is wise. He is one man. And he was speaking in general terms not necessarily applicable to times of war. I don't care whether or not you agree, I am fine allowing the gov't to spy on cell phones and email if it helps keep me from blowing up in an airplane. They very premise of moving from a state of nature to a society is that we surrender some rights to gain others. But feel free to live with Ben on anarchy island. LOL

You say this with complete confidence that what they're looking for that would land a citizen in prison is something that won't be found in your phone conversations or email.

What old Ben understood that you do not is that once you give up those rights you do not know who will be on the other end of the phone or email listening in, taking notes, and you do not know what their agenda will be.

But then Ben had not had it as easy as you; Ben Franklin lived in a time when he and his buds had to fight and sacrifice for the rights you take for granted.

 

[deserter85]

Really? I wasn't aware that you couldn't use "centrist" to describe bipartisan legislation within the confines of Congress.

So in your world, there is no such thing as something leaning center, something dead in the center, and somewhere in between that. There are no shades of gray. Fascinating.



[Text: Removed by Moderator] You said yourself that this was originally a Republican proposal in 2005.



Really? Is that so? Well, I wouldn't know since I voted for Bob Barr in '08 and have never been a member of "ObamaNation."



Yes, he's a run-of-the-mill politician. There are clearly people who recognize this and those who do not, and you aren't really going to change that. Keep banging your head against that wall and trying to change that.

[Text: Removed by Moderator] I already stated that I'm far from being an Obama fan, and you come in here starting shit with me for giving him the faintest praise. [Text: Removed by Moderator]

To be fair, bipartisanship and centrist isn't the same thing.

However, having centrist views does help to achieve bipartisanship, as it may appeal to the moderate Republicans/conservatives.

 

[Semirhage666]

Also unborn have been aborted using this procedure because of cleft palate or down syndrome.

Before reading any further, I'm going to say OF COURSE they are done for down syndrome. If I was a woman and got pregnant and had an amnio and learned it had down syndrome, I would abort without a second thought. Women are under no obligation to have and raise children with such severe mental disabilities.

 

[Semirhage666]

Twenty-four were done for cystic hydroma (a benign lymphatic mass, usually treatable in a child of normal intelligence). Nine were done for cleft lip-palate syndrome (a friend of mine, mother of five, and a colleague who is a pulmonary specialist were born with this problem). Other reasons included cystic fibrosis (my daughter went through high school with a classmate with cystic fibrosis) and duodenal atresia (surgically correctable, but many children with this problem are moderately mentally retarded). Guess they can't enjoy life, can they?

And then you have people like my friend who had a baby with Zellweger syndrome. It had water on the brain as well as many other problems. It lived 6 months, having constant seizures and was in pain most of the time. It was very traumatic for her and her husband. The next time she got pregnant, she did so with the intent to abort if the next one had it. If it had had it, neither you ore anyone else would have the right to tell her that she had to have it and go through that experience again.

As it's very hard to get regulations down to where extreme distinctions can be made within the system that everyone will agree upon, abortion can either be as accessible as it is today, or it can be accessible for no one after a certain point. The latter is simply unacceptable.

 

[Semirhage666]

It is you that needs to get real. YOU don't have the right to decide what level of brain development justifies a life. Interesting how you completely ignore the fact that 1000s of abortions have been performed on a fetus that was as biologically developed as an infant. Hmm. You definetly have the Planned Parenthood rhetoric down pat.
Tell you what, if you ever lose consciousness [Text: Removed by Moderator]. By your arguments that would be just fine You're completely fine pissing away life rights on those who haven't reached your arbitrary threshold of human development but bitch about the patriot act. I'd laugh if that wasn't so pathetic.

If biologists aren't the ones with the rights to decide what justifies life, who is? God? Well, guess what? Not everyone believes in the same God, so you can't legislate this entire country based on one group's religious beliefs.

Oh, yes. I certainly advocated the murder of anyone who becomes comatose or loses consciousness. There you go again, jumping to extremes. It's frightening how easily you jump from abortion to the murder of a living adult. [Text: Removed by Moderator]