right leaning persons: a question

by **Rocinante** Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:25 pm

I promise I won't disagree with you or refute your statements. I need some info. What are the grievances against Obama on the right? Specifically, I'd like to know how this administration is treading on civil rights. I hear it a lot and I'd like to know the basis. Please be as specific as you can be. Again, I'm not setting you up. Just want to know. Thanks.

by **Rocinante** Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:05 pm

You can PM me if you're not feeling putting it out there on the board. I won't post it....

right leaning persons: a question 1837840279

by Pervis Muldoon Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:33 pm

He gots all them drones takin pitchers of us. Read the consitooshun, Onama!

by **Turtleneck** Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:48 pm

Pervis Muldoon wrote:He gots all them drones takin pitchers of us. Read the consitooshun, Onama!

That sounds more like a civil liberties issue. The OP wants to hear about civil rights.

by **Rocinante** Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:01 pm

What's the difference again? Maybe I meant civil liberties.

by **Turtleneck** Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:09 pm

Rocinante wrote:What's the difference again? Maybe I meant civil liberties.

I think you did. These are just my definitions...

Civil rights are protections from arbitrary discrimination based on classifications like race, sex, or disability.

Civil liberties are those rights of expression, exercise, and due process like speech, the completely uncontroversial right to bear arms, or the limitations on search and seizure.

by **Rocinante** Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:13 pm

Yeah I did. Strike that. Civil liberties peeps.

by **xsanguine** Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:35 am

Rocinante wrote:Yeah I did. Strike that. Civil liberties peeps.

In the case... I have the same issues I have with Obama that I had with Bush II, and probably extends as far back through every president since it has mattered. I don't have anything against him (Obama) that anyone else in politics hasn't done, though. He doesn't seem any worse or better than anyone else that would step into those positions.

by Pervis Muldoon Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:06 am

Turtleneck wrote:

That sounds more like a civil liberties issue. The OP wants to hear about civil rights.

Is you one a them smartypants libruls? Obama riped up the bill a rights and the consitooshun and the gettiesberg adress. And he poops on the bible every day.

by **Turtleneck** Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:15 am

What?

by **Rocinante** Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:13 am

Okay double strike that... It doesn't have to be civil rights or liberties... Just give some detailed examples of what you think he's done that is egregious. Please? I've never for the 6 years he's been in office gotten answers to this.

by Hut1hut2 Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:26 am

Rocinante wrote:Okay double strike that... It doesn't have to be civil rights or liberties... Just give some detailed examples of what you think he's done that is egregious. Please? I've never for the 6 years he's been in office gotten answers to this.

Really? You have no idea why indepentants walked away from him years ago? Read much?

by **Rocinante** Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:32 am

I've looked it up. I can't find like a comprehensive detailed list! Like I have specific things I hated the bush administration for, mostly to do with war but there were a lot of other things. I could list them. I'm just looking for something like that.

by Hut1hut2 Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:39 am

Rocinante wrote:I've looked it up. I can't find like a comprehensive detailed list! Like I have specific things I hated the bush administration for, mostly to do with war but there were a lot of other things. I could list them. I'm just looking for something like that.

Keep searching. Not certain, but people generally dislike over reaching government policies, abuse of powers or scandals. Not accusing our president of anything, mind you.

by **Rocinante** Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:50 am

Okay that's not vague at all... Grrrrrr.

by Hut1hut2 Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:24 am

[quote="Rocinante"]Okay that's not vague at all... Grrrrrr.[/quote
Geeze, just stop trolling for an argument.

by **Rocinante** Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:54 am

Hut1hut2 wrote:

Did I not say I won't refute you? I'm serious. I won't argue. I don't even WANT to argue. I just want to know.

by **Turtleneck** Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:58 am

Rocinante wrote:

Did I not say I won't refute you? I'm serious. I won't argue. I don't even WANT to argue. I just want to know.

Well, there was the mom jeans thing.

by **Turtleneck** Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:19 pm

So how do we all feel about this?

On Monday, a federal appeals court in New York made public a redacted version of the Obama administration's legal justification for killing an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.
U.S. counterterror officials say Awlaki was a key leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and the newly-released memo outlines the legal rationale for killing the New Mexico-born cleric. That document, which is embedded and annotated below, makes the case that Awlaki had become part of al Qaeda and that the legal authority for the war on terror -- the so-called Authorization to Use Military Force -- allowed the United States to kill him in a drone strike abroad.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/06/23/read_the_white_house_s_secret_justification_for_killing_americans_with_drones?utm_content=bufferc47d0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Since al-Awlaki was a US citizen, should he have been guaranteed the same due process that other Americans are ensured via the Constitution?

by **Rocinante** Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:52 pm

Turtleneck wrote:So how do we all feel about this?

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/06/23/read_the_white_house_s_secret_justification_for_killing_americans_with_drones?utm_content=bufferc47d0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Since al-Awlaki was a US citizen, should he have been guaranteed the same due process that other Americans are ensured via the Constitution?

Start your own thread.

by **Turtleneck** Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:28 pm

No. This is what you wanted. It's about executive policy
and civil liberties. Now comment if you're not too busy rustling cattle.

by **xsanguine** Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:47 am

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
Is you one a them smartypants libruls? Obama riped up the bill a rights and the consitooshun and the gettiesberg adress. And he poops on the bible every day.

Turtleneck wrote:What?

It's the Bill Maher tactic; Create a strawman with a southern drawl to tear down so that he doesn't have to actually confront the opposing view.

by Hut1hut2 Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:23 am

Turtleneck wrote:So how do we all feel about this?

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/06/23/read_the_white_house_s_secret_justification_for_killing_americans_with_drones?utm_content=bufferc47d0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Since al-Awlaki was a US citizen, should he have been guaranteed the same due process that other Americans are ensured via the Constitution?

Yeah, probably not a good thing that Obama kills citizens without a trial.

by **Turtleneck** Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:26 am

But does a citizen plotting against the US from a foreign country enjoy the same rights?

by Hut1hut2 Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:35 am

Turtleneck wrote: But does a citizen plotting against the US from a foreign country enjoy the same rights?

Sure. Remember innocent until proven guilty?

by **Rocinante** Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:31 am

Turtleneck wrote:No. This is what you wanted. It's about executive policy
and civil liberties. Now comment if you're not too busy rustling cattle.

No its not the same. If somebody wants to put that on his list, cool, but I wanted a list.

by **Rocinante** Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:32 am

Hut1hut2 wrote:

Sure. Remember innocent until proven guilty?

Yeah, like Berghdal, right?

by **Turtleneck** Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:46 am

Rocinante wrote:

No its not the same. If somebody wants to put that on his list, cool, but I wanted a list.

You're high maintenance

by Hut1hut2 Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:00 am

Rocinante wrote:

Yeah, like Berghdal, right?

I don't follow your logic? Berghdal is getting a trail, those killed by drones did not.
Please explain.

by bullwrinkle Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:50 am

Rocinante wrote:Okay double strike that... It doesn't have to be civil rights or liberties... Just give some detailed examples of what you think he's done that is egregious. Please? I've never for the 6 years he's been in office gotten answers to this.

Have you noticed he loves to spy on people without getting authorization, including our own allies. Oh - he also likes to incinerate people with random drone strikes - including American citizens. That probably is a violation of due process, but you be the judge.

by **Rocinante** Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:05 pm

Okay let me help.

1). The NSA thing
2). The anwar al-awlaki thing.
3).??

by **Rocinante** Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:06 pm

Turtleneck wrote:

You're high maintenance

I'm aware.

by **Rocinante** Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:10 pm

Hut1hut2 wrote:

I don't follow your logic? Berghdal is getting a trail, those killed by drones did not.
Please explain.

A lot of people were pissed that we went and got him, said he was a deserter and should have been left. Most of those people were on the right. it would be funny if right wingers got angry about a self proclaimed enemy of the US being killed without a trial but were calling for Berghdal to be left to his fate "cuz he wuz a trayter!"

That's all.

by bullwrinkle Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:24 pm

Rocinante wrote:

A lot of people were pissed that we went and got him, said he was a deserter and should have been left. Most of those people were on the right. it would be funny if right wingers got angry about a self proclaimed enemy of the US being killed without a trial but were calling for Berghdal to be left to his fate "cuz he wuz a trayter!"

That's all.

Awfully strained analogy there bud. I'm a right winger and I did approve of them getting Bergdahl back. But he deserted and this country owed him nothing. He should be very thankful. But nobody I'm aware of was in favor of killing Bergdahl with a drone strike, or denying him due process in his military court martial (if there is one). I know you're trying to make a point....keep trying.

by **Rocinante** Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:26 pm

bullwrinkle wrote:

Awfully strained analogy there bud. I'm a right winger and I did approve of them getting Bergdahl back. But he deserted and this country owed him nothing. He should be very thankful. But nobody I'm aware of was in favor of killing Bergdahl with a drone strike, or denying him due process in his military court martial (if there is one). I know you're trying to make a point....keep trying.

I think it's pretty appropriate actually. A lot of right wingers think we should protect terrorists, and leave service members to die.

by **Rocinante** Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:35 pm

by **Rocinante** Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:37 pm

So let's get back to the list, since I was again proven correct.

by Hut1hut2 Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:58 pm

Rocinante wrote:

A lot of people were pissed that we went and got him, said he was a deserter and should have been left. Most of those people were on the right. it would be funny if right wingers got angry about a self proclaimed enemy of the US being killed without a trial but were calling for Berghdal to be left to his fate "cuz he wuz a trayter!"

That's all.

Right, has nothing to do with the question you started the thread with?

by Hut1hut2 Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:02 pm

Rocinante wrote:

I think it's pretty appropriate actually. A lot of right wingers think we should protect terrorists, and leave service members to die.

??? Actually it's was Obama who let the terrorists free and Clinton did the same-but why concern yourself with facts.

by bullwrinkle Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:44 pm

Rocinante wrote:

I think it's pretty appropriate actually. A lot of right wingers think we should protect terrorists, and leave service members to die.

No - a lot of right wingers think it's not a good idea to incinerate innocent people on the assumption they are terrorists. Keep trying.

by Sponsored content