Barack Obama

Obama is not like Bush at all and I think you know that.

And let's be honest, I think you'd rather allow a phone call of yours to be heard by the federal government than for you to walk on a plane that is going to be flown into some national landmark. You have to realize that the Patriot Act exists for a reason. Can it be overbearing? Yes, it is in some ways, but what people have to realize is that if you have nothing to hide, then it really can't do anything to you. Only if you are actually a terrorist do you have anything to be afraid of. I don't care of the government is listening to my phone calls or pumping some money into airport security that perhaps is a bit overbearing. I'd rather know that I'm walking onto a plane and that I will make it to my destination than be scared that some crazy person will manage to get on with a bomb and blow shit up.

I did a lot of research on the principle of our individual rights vs. the common good, and to be honest, I think people need to calm down on this whole deal of feeling as though the Patriot Act is taking away some of your rights. I really could not tell you how in any way it has ruined my life, because it hasn't, and I highly doubt that it's ruined yours unless for whatever reason you've been trying to plot a terrorist attack.

And I also want to add something my argument against this point of yours where Obama is basically just like Bush in virtually every way: You have to understand that Bush was a puppet of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, and that the Bush Administration's decisions consisted of actions based on selective words and reasons that held no substance. Bush took us into Iraq for essentially no reason, whereas Obama has made it a point to remove us from Iraq. The Bush Administration spent 6-7 years searching for Osama Bin Laden and failed to find him, and the Obama Administration tactfully worked with the military to find him and kill him. The Bush administration spent so much money and helped to put the country into millions of dollars of debt, whereas the Obama administration has been trying desperately to reduce the deficit, but has struggled because the GOP doesn't know any better.

Is it true that Obama struggles to make effective and decisive decisions? Yes, it is, because he wants to please everyone and he unfortunately cannot seem to just accept that. However, Obama has done a lot in his four years, and it only doesn't seem like a lot because people don't fucking get that it takes longer to fix things than it does to ruin them. What the Bush administration managed to fuck up in 8 years will take decades to repair, and requires not only the effectiveness and efficiency of our government in regards to spending and political decisions, but also the intelligence and willingness of the population to be careful with its money and educate themselves before they go and vote in the polls.

Now, this really isn't to say that things are perfect, and that Obama is our savior, because he isn't, and I think I've made this clear enough. But he is not like Bush and I think you should be able to do the research to see just how much he is not like Bush. He has done a lot, and it is difficult as a president when you have a whole party and a lot of the uneducated population against you simply because you're not the same old white guy that people are used to seeing in Office.

People are also so afraid that Obama is "socializing" America and that we are becoming a fascist nation. Everyone needs to just hold their pants and realize that this isn't some sort of fascist dictator, but a President who is trying to repair some aspects of our country that have long needed change. Many people have lacked proper healthcare coverage, and so he has made an effort to help people get that healthcare. He has tried to lower taxes for lower income families and raise taxes for higher income families because honestly, it's a balance that will help the government pay for what it needs to in order to help the population, because as we all should know and should start to understand, an income tax that is a bit more based on income than it already is is necessary. However, the GOP wanted to extend the Bush Tax Cuts, which, while it does lower tax cuts for everyone, does the same for big corporations and the highest income families that really would feel no indent if their taxes were a bit higher, and because Obama knew that he wouldn't be able to pass tax cuts for lower income families apart from extending the Bush Tax Cuts, he was sort of coerced to do so. If you want to tell me that Obama is oppressive in some way, then maybe you should look at the GOP, and how by extending the Bush tax cuts they are actually adding 4 trillion dollars to the national debt over the next decade. A former Obama budget director came out sometime later and said that if they had not passed the Bush tax cuts, it would have done a serious amount of work in balancing the budget, if not have actually done so, which as we know was a major focus of GOP Idol Ronald Reagan.

There's so much more to be discussed but you guys have to stop making these comparisons to Bush and Obama, because the actual comparisons need to be made to what Bush did and what the GOP wants, which are essentially the same things. The GOP only knows how to say no, and to be honest, there was a CNN article he other day talking about how people really haven't approved of what the GOP's done so far. Progress was being made when Obama had a better grip on what was going on. Oh, and let's not forget that Obama also helped eliminate "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," something Bush never did or probably even thought about doing during his administration. He's increased national fuel economy standards, allowed people to see where the money is going for the Recovery Act (don't think you ever got to see where Bush was spending money, did you?), provided healthcare to millions of people including 11 million children, removed restrictions on stem cell research which could cure life threatening diseases, prevented companies from denying healthcare based on preexisting conditions, has appointed more openly-gay officials than any other President in history (think Bush would have done that?), and has created more private sector jobs in 2010 than Bush did for the entirety of his administration. So, in other words, get off of your high horse thinking that Obama is anything like Bush, 'cause he's not, and the only reason Obama has failed to do more and a lot of what he set out to do was because of the damned GOP that doesn't have the willingness to budge on some issues.

Oh, and that quote came from Thomas Jefferson, I believe. Let's keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson did not know that nuclear weapons could exist and that airplanes could be hijacked to kill thousands of people. Yeah, I think we also all need to understand that the Constitution cannot be applied as clearly as it was in the early 1800s, so let's stop trying to stick to strict construction, and maybe make some of the necessary changes in regards to the interpretation of our Constitution in order to be able to apply the Bill of Rights in this modern day. That means people not freaking about their gun rights, since that was only for the militias during that time period and not to every fucking household in the damn country, and that means perhaps passing an amendment on the clarification of privacy, as opposed to sticking to the penumbras and emanations of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments, which is broad and somewhat unclear.

 

Speaking of gun rights, I do not see why it is necessary for guns to be as "legal" as they are right now. I have seen not ONE by TWO instances in this year alone where someone with a gun has accidentally killed a loved one because it fired unexpectedly, and that's 2 times too many. Guns should only be in the hands of the military/trained professionals, not given to anybody who applies for a gun license and passes a background check. Guns are dangerous to human lives, and should have never been so readily available to every person in the united states. If you don't know how to properly handle a gun, and keep it from firing, you shouldn't possess the gun.

I feel terrible saying that considering the lifetime of pain those two people will endure for what they accidentally did, but right there's a reason why (imho) the gun laws need to be changed. Sure all the rednecks and 2nd amendment morons will cry, bitch and whine until they get their right to bear arms, but if guns weren't so readily available a lot of tragedies could've been avoided. I'm waiting for a president to grow some balls and seriously challenge the 2nd amendment the way it is currently, because it's severely antiquated and needs some changes.

 

No worries. Take your time on getting to read that. I do apologize for the lengthiness, but I felt it all had to be said. I watched the video you posted in the other thread, and I just wanted to make some points on it:
- For the first 5 minutes of the video, Senator Paul discusses that the government can see practically anything we do through bank records and the like, and continues to ask if we really want a government that can do that. He failed at this point to point out what sort of negative consequences could really arise if the government could see what magazines I read. I also want to point out that I've never had issues wiring money for university and the like, so I'm not sure that his argument in regards to the police knocking on my door for large transactions is really valid.
- He makes a good point in regards to the concerns regarding future leaders potentially taking advantage of the provisions of the Patriot Act and using those against citizens, but so long as citizens are well-informed and checks are maintained on our elected officials, we should be okay.
- He says that if we want to protect our 2nd amendment rights, we need to protect our gun records. If the government doesn't have some access to gun records, then what will happen if someone who owns a gun is suddenly diagnosed with a serious mental disorder? Are we really going to leave them with that gun, or can we use their records to confiscate that weapon and treat that person adequately? I know it's a very specific example, but we've seen that most instances lately of gun violence on a large scale have been on part of mentally deranged people.
- I really wish that Senator Paul would take it upon himself to show where exactly these provisions he's talking about are. I don't like the sound of my phone company being fined and jailed for telling me about whether or not my phone records have been reviewed, but I also don't know if that's actually the case.
- Senator Paul talks about protecting our 4th Amendment rights as was intended by our Founding Fathers. I know you haven't had the time to look thoroughly through my post, but I did mention that the times have changed, and that we cannot continue to interpret and act upon our Constitution as if it were the early 19th century. Modern application and interpretation is necessary, and perhaps that means making some new amendments to the Constitution.
- He asks why we are searching innocent people when we should be searching for terrorists in regards to airport security and phone records. Terrorists thrive because they find ways to fit in to the innocent populus. Without searching through innocent people and making sure everyone who walks to their gate doesn't have some sort of bomb on them, we are more likely to let someone through. Terrorists try not to be obvious, because that's the only way they can succeed.
- His overall concern is very well intended, and to be quite honest he's one of a few conservative officials who I can listen to and understand because he's not being ridiculous. I just feel as though he's not supporting his argument as well as he could, and also missing out on a few important points, which I've listed. I do appreciate his concern for combatting terrorism while maintaining our freedoms. It is respectable.

Now on your list of points regarding comparisons / similarities between Presidents Bush and Obama:
- Bush started wars, Obama ended combat in Iraq and will most likely try to end the one in Afghanistan if he is re-elected. Libya is a special case because many people are being killed, and many countries agree that Ghadaffi (sp?) must be removed from power. Our involvement in that particular affair is nowhere near to the same scale as were Iraq and Afghanistan.
- The Patriot Act is necessary in many ways, so I feel as though Obama's extension isn't a big deal.
- Medicare Plan B and Obama's Healthcare Plan (I refuse to call it Obamacare because it sounds silly) do good things for the enormous amount of people in our population who need healthcare and proper medical treatment. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. That was perhaps one of Bush's best moves.
- Won't fight you in regards to Ben Bernanke, simply because I don't really know a whole lot about him and why people think he's so controversial (although I know a lot of people think he is very controversial in regards to the bailouts and such). That's something I need to learn more about.
- The TARP Bailout is controversial, but it must have been necessary in some way or another. I can't say that's a big deal.
- Gates replaced Rumsfeld and was supported on a bipartisan basis. His controversies arose before his appointment by President Bush. I think we're okay.

So yes, these are fair comparisons but in a sense, these are things that I don't think are a huge deal. I actually think these things make the Bush Administration look better than most people view it. I still can't say Obama is like Bush, though, and I've thoroughly explained why I think so. When you get the chance to read it, I'm sure we'll have a bit of a more thorough discussion.

 

I apologize for the double post in advance, but I did not see Kathy's post until I had finished my response to Travz21.

First of all, I want to say that your concerns are legitimate. Obviously there are concerns to be had with the security of our children and families, as well as our closest friends.

However, there are a few things to keep in mind, one being that in general you have to be careful with what you say and what you do in general, simply because anyone can use those against you at any time. It doesn't have to be the government. It could be your next door neighbor, who disapproves of your religion and manages to convince everyone in your neighborhood not to be your friend and assist you when you need it. In general, being careful with our words and actions is just a common practice and piece of advice that everyone needs to consider. Thinking before you say or do is wise. Teach your children that, and they should be fine too (please don't take offense, I'm just a naturally blunt person, I'm sure you're a great mother, or will be if your statements are hypothetical).

The second thing I have to say is that Japanese Internment occurred during wartime, and while it was largely unfair in the way it was executed, we must understand that in the situation of World War II, things are different. Rights are lost for the sake of the greater good. Preserving individual rights in a time of war is nonsense, because the government wouldn't be able to do much. During the Roman Republic, in times of war and crisis they appointed a dictator for a period of 6 months until the crisis was handled, and the dictator would willingly step down and the Republic would resume. This worked for over 200 years and goes to show you that the Romans understood this concept of things changing during times of crisis. Now, please no one think that I'm trying to justify the Japanese Internment, because I think the way it was executed and the manner in which the government went about trying to find Japanese spies was nonsensical, harmful to the Japanese population, and just a poor choice. However, the idea of people giving up certain liberties in times of crisis to stay alive and be secure is nothing new, and nothing bizarre.

Does this mean that I feel we should be giving up all of our liberties at all times? Absolutely not, and you guys are making it sound like the extension of the Patriot Act is just that. How many of you have truly felt like your rights were limited because of it? I can tell you that I haven't. I live my life as I always have (although I'm more environmentally conscious now than I used to be), and I think that people seem to go to extremes whenever something like this happens. Just because the Patriot Act was extended, it doesn't mean that another Hitler or Mussolini just took over our country. People overreact and always think of the worst things instead of trying to consider what good could come out of things if we gave up a few of our rights for greater protection during certain times?

The point of a social contract in general is just that. You give up certain liberties to have even greater ones protected. This is the very principle on which most governments are run today! The government isn't your enemy (although it can be). It is comprised of you, and you are in many ways responsible for determining who is elected. That's why we vote! Are you scared of electing a despot? Then don't elect a despot. People need to learn that the system put in place, while not perfect, is meant so that we determine who leads us. If a despot is put into power, then that is our fault. So don't put this all on the government, because you make the government at the end of the day. At the end of the day, most of the people who are in Congress are not divine rulers, but people we voted to put there. You make the difference, not some separate entity you identify as the government. In other words, you are the government, so do your part and fulfill your civic duties by going out to vote and making sure those votes are educated and thought about.

Are there many ways in which terrorists can attack us? Yes, of course there are, and we have to be careful as always, but I'll tell you right now that if the government started going to food docks, a lot of people would just start bitching about how the government is determining what food we get (people already do because of the FDA and the EPA). And just because we can't completely protect ourselves from terrorism, doesn't mean we shouldn't protect ourselves at all, simply because we want to protect individual rights and stop the government from seeing what magazines we read. We have to be realistic here, and understand that this isn't just about our rights. It's about our country's survival and resistance against terrorism, and about our security as people. That cannot be ignored.

I understand your points, I really do, and maybe this is just a fundamental disagreement between you and me, just as individual rights vs. the common good is a fundamental conflict. However, if you ask me, I prefer my security and my survival in the long run, even if the government knows I like to read Rolling Stone Magazine or knows that I'm an Agnostic. I'm glad to be alive and glad to know that, still, most of rights are still protected and that I can live my life as I like to. And I'm sure this applies to most, if not all people, currently living in the United States that are not terrorists or criminals.

 

THIS

I recently flew back from London. 2 things I noticed:

1. Heathrow Airport's security doesn't make you take your shoes off. They're doing just fine over there. It's stupid pointless exercise that only wastes time. And I was through security in all of 2 minutes, and it was quite a busy morning. Security was more efficient, the employees were friendlier, and it was a much better experience compared to the bullshit we put up with in the states.
2. While going through security in the US, I was in the security line with pilots on their way to work. PILOTS. If these guys want to fly a plane into a skyscraper, they're going to fucking fly the plane into the skyscraper, security or no security. American airspace might be a bit safer if we spent more time looking for terrorists and less time groping the people whose job it is to fly the plane. I didn't feel any safer knowing that the guys in the cockpit had all of their liquids in 3 ounce containers in a single 1 quart bag.

US airport security is reactive, not proactive. A terrorist tries to blow a plane up with a bomb in his shoe, now we have to have our shoes x-rayed. A terrorist tries to blow up a plane with liquids, now we can't bring bottled water and toothpaste on planes. A terrorist tries to blow up a plane with a bomb strapped to his nutsack, now we have to go through nudie scanners and be molested by incompetent TSA agents. The next logical step for terrorists is to shove a bomb up their ass, so what happens when that happens? Cavity searches for all flyers? Would that be the point where people finally say enough is enough? Or would they continue with the "Anything to keep us safe!" bullshit they've said every time the TSA restricts us further?

Intelligence needs to be better and behavioral screening needs to be better. The guy who had the bomb strapped to his bean bag? His dad reported his terrorist associations to the CIA before he flew. He bought a one way ticket from a place where Al Qaeda is known to be active, in cash, and that didn't raise any red flags? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he probably shouldn't be allowed to fly, at least not without extra screening. That's where improvements need to be made. Patting down 5 year old kids and telling people they can't bring water on the plane is not making us safer.

 

I was going to mention that in my post for Kathy but forgot to, and you're absolutely right. We are not proactive. We are reactive. Good post.

 

I'll respond to your post sometime later today when I have some more time, but I do apologize for the lengthiness. That's just how I am with my posts. Although I don't think you really needed to point that out. Feels like an extra jab.

Meh, I do have some time now. I'll go for what I can. I won't be able to address all points, I think.

Common practice is not a justification for government to interfere with it. Common practice is something to consider in a time when an act like the Patriot Act is being enforced. I'm just saying that I feel as though people need to respond to the Patriot Act by just being more careful with how you go about your business, which in general is just a smart thing to do. It doesn't justify government interference. It is, in some respect, a response.

I do agree that the government is here to protect our basic rights, but we cannot expect to be guaranteed all of them all of the time during times of crisis. I just don't think that the government could effectively resolve a crisis without having to make some exceptions. That doesn't mean we should be throwing people into camps, but if it means losing some privileges and rights (to a certain extent, of course), then I don't think there's too much of a problem with that.

Again, I'm not trying to justify the Japanese Internment. I'm trying to explain why it happened, not that it should have.

If you don't expect to get the power you've given to the government back, then you need to be careful with who you vote in and what sort of acts they want to pass that would be giving the government more power. But in general, a powerful government isn't a bad thing. But like you said, there is a certain extent, and what extent that is varies from person to person. I don't think the Patriot Act goes too far (at least from what I know it does, but that's not to say I'm an expert on it), but I could probably say with certainty that the Patriot Act is as far as the government should be allowed to go.

Yes, it isn't true that a dictator will step down peacefully or at all every time, that's understandable. But that's why the rule of law is a principle that must continue to be enforced. I'd like to clarify that the dictator was given certain provisions, and that provisions were made for his removal, but it just turned out that more often than not he would be virtuous and give up power when it was time. But you're absolutely right, not every leader is perfect and will always abide by the rule of law, which is why you have to have the proper measures to enforce it.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, even if it means making some sacrifices. A point here to understand is that there is no way that you can do anything significant for this country without making a few sacrifices. What sacrifices you make have to be thought about, yes, but if you expect to live your life and expect the government to protect you and this country without making some sacrifices that might hurt some people, either now or later, then you may need to spend some more time thinking about this issue.

Of course you shouldn't just throw your problems at the government, because like I said, you essentially are the government and the government really shouldn't be treated as some separate entity. I agree with you that the government needs to be checked. If a law like the Patriot Act is to be passed, then measures should also be passed to make sure that the people we have elected are not overstepping their bounds, whether it be with enforcing that particular Act or during their whole term in office.

I agree with the point on security and that it should be proactive, not reactive. Here we have some common ground. All I've really said though in regards to this is that I haven't really had an issue with what measures are in place currently, but I understand others do.

If you're putting the government on the same level as terrorists in terms of how they threaten your freedoms, then I think that needs to be reconsidered. The government is not some terrorist organization. Like I said, you can play a role in what the government does, and only by people not doing so (which happens considering our voter turnout is shit relative to the rest of the world and our nation's history) do we find ourselves facing problems with our government.

And I think I should clarify that I'm not trying to throw future generations under the bus. I'm just trying to say that I think security and survival are more important things than what you feel you should be allowed to do. Do I think this should be the case all of the time? No, it should be this way during times of crisis only, ideally. However, I ultimately feel that the stability of this nation and the lives of the people who live and will live in it is more important than what those people think they should be able to do, with the exception of the most fundamental rights of life, liberty, health, and property.

Huh, that worked out. Cool.

 

Here's the thing though - after 9/11, the point of creating the TSA was to fix broken airport security. But nothing about airport security was broken. 9/11 was not the result of a failure of airport security. The 19 hijackers did not bring anything on board they were not allowed to at the time. They used boxcutter knives, which were allowed on planes. It's not like they snuck a gun through security. The TSA and the stupid new rules that go along with it were to give people the illusion that something was being done. In reality, nothing major needed to be done with airport security in response to 9/11. The security we had on 9/10/01 was fine. We should've kept that, added a ban on knives, and perhaps add the restriction that only passengers with boarding passes can go airside to the gate area, if only just to reduce lines. The best thing done in response to 9/11 was reinforced cockpit doors that can only be opened from the inside by the pilots. But, the problem with doing just that is it's not a highly visible change. Leaving it at that would make the government look like they're not doing anything in response to 9/11, and the masses don't like that. So the TSA and the bureaucracy that came with it were created, these stupid rules were put in place, and now people can say "No bottled water on planes? I feel safe now!"

I'm fine with having carry on bags x-rayed and walking through a metal detector (just like before 9/11, that's nothing new). The shoes thing is pointless, the liquids ban is just plain dumb, and having to take your laptop out of the bag and send it through separately in it's own bin is a waste of time and puts your laptop at risk of being stolen. Fortunately the TSA came to their senses on the laptop one and there are now special "TSA Approved" bags you can buy that fold out in such a way that you don't have to remove your laptop. I have one and it does save a shitload of time at the checkpoint. But it's a dumb rule in the first place. Don't get me started on the nudie scanners and the patdowns. They are completely unnecessary.