Rachel Maddow/Obama fans.... Did any of you pay attention to this?
 

Maddow talking about Obama's speech justifying the prolonged detention of people without trial, while in the same speech, condemning the Bush administration.



I think that the party hacks on both sides simply ignore this stuff when it comes from their own people. I know that, in part because, in looking back at certain times in my life I was one of those people. (This is no longer the case, as I have gone libertarian and hold no allegience to any party), but for many people it still is, and this stuff will just flow slowly through, and government powers will grow, while people argue about which party is better or worse.


Thoughts?



.:Oh crap

It's not much different then when people stick up for their friends doing stupid things.

Some say that a friend will always back you up. I say that a friend will set you straight when you are being an idiot.

was posted here a few times by partisan dem types. if you didn't notice maybe it's you who is actually blinded, my friend.

"I think that the party hacks on both sides simply ignore this stuff when it comes from their own people."

I think its mostly you because Rachael and most of the left are outraged by this. But that fact ruins the spin that both sides doing it. Which also goes back to that other bullshit line, how Obama is the biggest liberal ever. Fucking Nixon was more liberal. lol

rachel is attacking obama, not defending him. In the end, she called his speech "one of the most radical proposals for defying the constitution."

So your premise, that party hacks just go along with hypocrisy, appears to be incorrect.

Maddow is great as usual, but she is ripping Obama, not endorsing his actions.

.

Over the last year or I've begun to think more and more that my own wisdom can be better judged by my ability to see the other point of view, to see where "the other side" is right, and even to see where "my side" is wrong, than by ability to defend what my team is doing.

Habeas Corpus

It's the legal theory of imminent danger.
Imminent danger is an immediate threat of harm I suppose but it is a stretch in this case.
The terrorist wins when he alters the everyday behavior and the human rights freedoms of his victim.

However, the argument of foreign combatants gives no US constitutional rights to those held.

Yes, I DO recognize that Maddow is attacking Obama, and I applaud her for that... I'm just wondering how it will get covered overall in the media....

As for not seeing it posted before... I'm really not on GFY every single day, so sometimes I miss things, sorry about that.


:-)

As for this proving that Obama is not left wing..... government control and detention of people is a VERY left wing idea... please take even a casual glance at history.


.

what media, "party hacks that simply ignore this stuff when it comes from their own people" are you talking about?

there is a major problem reconciling habeas corpus with the indefinite detention policy. The govt is stuck with prisoners who were detained with secret intelligence, & they have no clue how legalize their detention.

There really is no good answer for these gray area detainees. if you really want to stick to the law, they should be tried or freed, right?

you should be a stand up comic.

thats too funny. really thanks I needed a laugh. I feel like shit, sick as a dog and you brightened my day.

You've confirmed my suspicions; you're a liberal posing as a right wing nut in an attempt to make the right look as stupid as possible. You were doing really good for a long time but I think you may have pushed the envelope with this one.

I guess then that we shouldn't count Cuba, the USSR, China, North Korea, The Sandanista government, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Montenegro, etc, etc, etc....

Those aren't Left-wing, right?



.

My point is that this stuff comes from BOTH sides, left and right. This is why I only believe in making government as limited and restricted in it's power as possible, or inevitably we end of with the crap we are coming to now... No matter WHO is in power.


.:2 cents:

And Augusto Pinochet, South African apartheid, Somozas, Argentine Junta brought nothing but happiness to its people because of its ultra right orientations, right?
You are such a retard Mike. :2 cents:

Did you read the rest of my post? Apparently you can only read one paragraph at a time, so I will copy and paste...

"My point is that this stuff comes from BOTH sides, left and right. This is why I only believe in making government as limited and restricted in it's power as possible, or inevitably we end of with the crap we are coming to now... No matter WHO is in power."


.

Obama is an ultra liberal who's had tons of legislation signed through, but it's as if it was on condition that he let all the Bush Hawks carry on during his mandate. A very weird situation, all told...

.

I guess this wasn't written by you.. Some other clown Bozo?

And one more time.... MY POINT IS THAT IT COMES FROM BOTH SIDES!

Seriously, are you just being deliberately obtuse, and trolling me, or what? How can you not understand this?

Everyone was pointing to Obama's detention stance as a "right-wing" activity, when meanwhile it has been a HUGE feature in left wing regimes which have dominated more than 2/3 of the worlds population this century.


I don't see how you can't understand that it comes from both sides, which is why I'm against giving ANY government too much power. Whether you "like" that government, or not.


.

Left/Right, Democrats/Republicans, Social Democrats/Neo liberals,... 2 wings, same bird.

Then this...
is a wildly inaccurate statement, wouldn't you say?

.

No, it is not inaccurate. It IS a very left-wing idea.

The fact that it is also a very right-wing idea does not make the first statement false.

No offense, but does anyone around here use logic at ALL in their critical thinking?


.:Oh crap

Oh really, so if government control and detention of people is a VERY left wing idea and a VERY right wing idea, why call out one instead of the other?

Just wondering why you would do that...

.

Because people earlier in the thread were using it as a way of "proving" that Obama is not Left wing.



.

Oh lordy :helpme

.

yeah...because every time you point blame in one direction, we should just assume you really mean both directions.

:banana

Everyone knows I don't like the current administration. I don't think I have ever called Barry liberal. I don't like him for reasons that are solely about him

You're making the mistake of trying to divide world politics into right vs. left when that is only a classification used for the political spectrum in the United States. I don't really know how you can even attempt to compare Liberal Democrats in the US to Soviet style Communists, must be listening to too much Glenn Beck.

Ah yes, you're in the same predicament as the majority of conservative voters in this country right now: they hate Obama, but unconciously realize that the ideas their own candidates are suggesting haven't worked out too well for us. At least they can take comfort in knowing that Obama is a right-center republican after all.

He's really still very right-wing, but on temporary vacation as a libertarian. Just post some of the many libertarian policies that the left is also in agreement with and true colors will shine.

Please go ahead. I would welcome it, and I would be glad to answer those.... It's apparent from your post that you might be surprised.



.:2 cents:

Wondering if SpermBozo will be able to beat this stupidity in his next thread ...

First thing that comes to mind is how often the right come out against gay rights (marriage, military, etc...).

Another is pro-choice. The right is pro-life.

Legalization of Marijuana. The right is usually against this.

Open on the subject of Immigration, which the right (except Bush? lol) are so strongly against.

My opinion is that most of the forums Republicans are really more liberatarian-minded about some of these social issues, but fell into sticking with the party-line anyway instead of acknowledging what they might really believe if they weren't rooting for their team.

Personally I think that anyone that thinks that giving more power to "their guys" when they control an administration is a good idea is being stupid. No one ever seems to pause and think about the fact that when the "other side" takes over, they will have those same powers, and will continue to grow the government even more. The Dem's have grown the power of the government over business, and economic freedoms, and the Republicans have abused those powers, and the Republicans have grown the government over social issues and the Democrats have abused those powers..... and back and forth. It all gets bigger and bigger, and meanwhile both sides are about more power, in whatever form, over every aspect of what we do. This is ignored by most people and they stand by and applaud as "their side" gives the government yet more powers to control us, and then whine when the "other guys" do the same. This, to me, is the height of stupidity.

And it's why I have rejected everything that does not move us in the direction of making government as limited as possible.


.:2 cents:

you are a fucking idiot and make you business look bad.

At this point, im just really tired of Obama, 4 years of gridlock, and all his extreme left wing ideals.

On the far left, you have statism and fascism and communism. On the far right, you have constitutionalists who believe in individual rights.

The concept of far right dictators and mass murderers doesn't exist. It is a fantasy of the left. Mao, Hitler, Stalin and all the rest are leftists. Mao even said that he had no problem liquidating millions of his own people because China's population was so great.

Read Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism.

Couldn't care less about gay marriage. Anyone that wants to call themselves "married" can do so. As for registering that marriage with the government, I think that should be up to the states, not the federal government. Gays in the military, no problem with it.

As for drugs, they should ALL be legal. Period. You're body is your own. Using them in a way that endangers others, like driving under the influence, is something that the states should have the right to control.

I have no issue with immigration. I do think that sovereign nations have the right to decide how to control the flow of people across their own borders. Almost every country in the world, (including Mexico), strictly enforces their own rules as to who can come in and who can't. The US should have the same right.

As for abortion, I believe that a everyone's individual right to live is paramount to all other rights. Therefore I believe that a baby's right to live trumps a woman's right to avoid an inconvenience.


Anything else? Obviously I believe in freedom of speech, even speech that I don't like, or someone is "offended by". (I say "obviously" since I work in this industry).


.

That's quite a coherent and salient point to the discussion. Thank you.





.:winkwink:

How about capital punishment?

I have to square my views on that with my views on self-defense. I think that a person can use deadly force in order to protect themselves and others from someone that poses an immediate threat. Obviously this decision must be made in the moment, by the people involved, and the merits of that decision judged later by their community.

By the same token I'm somewhat on the fence as to capital punishment. If a community feels that a convicted murderer, comprises an ongoing threat to that community, do they have the right to "self defence", rather than the obligation to take care of that person for the rest of their lives? I'm not sure, but I also don't think it should be a federal issue, but rather a state level decision.

As you may notice, I differ a lot of power to the states, as does the constitution. The reason for that is two-fold. Firstly, it is that the smaller the area, and population, that a government represents, the more representative of that population it is. Conversely, Central, Federal governments with control over huge areas and huge populations are very very difficult to influence on the local level and therefore not nearly as representative.
Secondly leaving the majority of the power to the states, as was granted by the 10th amendment, creates a "free market" of government styles, whereby citizens can move to the state that most represents their point of view, and wants and needs for their own lives. States would "compete" for people that they wish to live there, and I'm a firm believer that competition in a free market creates better products overall. In this case the "product" would be government.


.

Jesus, poor attempt to weasel yourself out and still look like an idiot. If its very right and very left, it everyone's idea, you duffus.

Right. Which is exactly why Obama's stance pro the detention issue does NOT prove that he is actually right-wing.


See? We agree...




.

Brujah, did that answer your question about my stance on issues?



.