So he's a failure. Barrack Obama has finally spoke out about the TSA's pat downs and once again, he's siding with the governments disregard of Civil Rights. He has consistently failed to defend the Constitution in this area and I'm done with him. I'm wondering who is going to have the guts to run against him in the primary. Russ Feingold? Dennis Kucinich? The Democratic Party had better step up because Barrack Obama won't get my vote even if it's Palin v Obama and it's a tight race.

We've all been hearing about the TSA's procedures. What you have to realize is that this is a Cabinet controlled position. With the wave of a hand, an utterance from his mouth, Mr. Obama can end this trampling of our civil rights. His position? "One of the most frustrating aspects of this fight against terrorism is that it has created a whole security apparatus around us that causes huge inconvenience for all of us." Source "Inconvenience"? "All of us"? Sir, when do you think that you'll be subjecting your daughters to a strip search in front of an entire airport? (Young Boy had this happen.) If your wife ever has a mastectomy, will it be OK if TSA asks her to pull it out in front of everybody like this lady? If you end up with a bladder or colon problem, you won't mind TSA breaking the seal and pushing waste on to your body or clothes, will you? The fact is, you'll never be faced with this. The fact is that for your political position, in the face of terrorism, you'll toss our rights on the burning alter. Sir, my rights are not yours to throw away. 

Barrack Obama is a Constitutional Rights attorney. The greatest dissent I have ever read is from Florida v Bostick. The short, a drug mule was on a bus and cops show up doing sweeps. While blocking the aisle way with badges and pistols on hips, they ask to search the bag of the mule. He consents. So would a reasonable person feel free to leave? No. But the court ruled to admit the evidence because he was already captive by being a passenger. Thurgood Marshall wrote the greatest dissent and our President needs to go back and read it again. 

"[T]he evidence in this cause has evoked images of other days, under other flags, when no man traveled his nation's roads or railways without fear of unwarranted interruption, by individuals who held temporary power in the Government. The spectre of American citizens being asked, by badge-wielding police, for identification, travel papers -- in short, a raison d'etre -- is foreign to any fair reading of the Constitution, and its guarantee of human liberties.

I sincerely recommend reading this dissent. It's the most common sense rights over fear answer to random searches that I've ever read. Link

Barrack's failure on Civil Rights isn't contained to this one issue. Let's take a look at a few others. I'll try to be brief. In the first month he promised to close down Guantanamo within one year. We are closing in on two years... and it's still open. He's moved from it being wrong to arguing that he can hold people indefinitely without ever filing a single charge. Sir, you are not a king and this isn't your Bastille. People have rights, even if they are our enemy. If you can't even put together a military case, you have to set them free. This isn't even legal argument, it's a moral one. 

He's decided that the CIA can carry on with kidnapping people abroad and doing who knows what to him. Yeah, he says that you must follow Army Field Manual, but if he's allowing kidnapping, maybe that position is simply allowing for plausible deniability because clearly he's conflicted on rights in many other places. If you don't know what rendition is, here's the wiki link for you. 

He continues a Faith Based Office. He's spending our money on religion. He mocks a popular internet question about his position on Marijuana. "And I don't know what this says about our audience but.." You self-righteous ass. Do you remember this guy? Did you respect him? And when it comes to gays, he doesn't have the courage to stand for equality and instead says that gays shouldn't marry. Source Would you mind if we put in separate but equal water fountains for your daughters sir? I'd like for you to lay out the fundamental difference in those arguments. 

Barrack Obama has done some good stuff. I was feeling pretty proud of him early on. But I'm really taking a crap on his Civil Rights positions. Like I said, I will not vote for him. I cannot cast a vote for  ignoring my rights. Democrats, either get us a candidate that will respect our rights, or expect no vote from me, and maybe a few million others. It's enough to swing most elections. Your job is to unseat your president and have the courage to vote for America over your fears for what it means to your party. We need to send a message to all future candidates that even within a party, if you don't hold up your end of the bargain, you are through. President Obama, your desire to pat my junk has led to much of your base deciding to kick you in your political junk. 

So who do we start to prop up on the interwebs? Feingold? Kucinich? Who has the guts and the track record of always standing up for us regardless of the political consequences?    

Views: 218

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Since Obama is an incumbent, he stands the best chance as long as the economy doesn't take any dives. The Democrats would commit political suicide by running another candidate. So, what you are left with is handing over the White House to the Republicans in 2012.

My sincere question to you is: do you think we would be better off with a Republican in office in 2012 over Obama?
This is the crux of the problem here.  If we're on the precipice with a democrat in office, how much worse will it be with a republican?  Besides, I don't believe the democratic party will even allow another candidate to take the nomination.
Why would it be political suicide to put Kucinich against Palin? Your position is common, but I don't accept it. If his approval level is below 50% why couldn't he be replaced with someone without the negative baggage of four years. The argument is one of impotence.

And if it's Republican versus someone who has shown a disregard for our rights, I'll roll the dice or vote for a third party like I did last time.
Do you think that if the Democrats undermine their own guy in office that it would bode well for them against the Republicans? Especially if they were running the new guy? I can't see how they could expect to win. The Republicans would sieze on Democrat disarray and uncertainty and bury them in the election.

While you may vote third party, history has shown how that turns out. Republicans have shown equal disregard for our rights. The problem isn't one of Democrat or Republican when it comes to rights. It is one of apathy and/or fear from the American public. Change that and you can change the Republican/Democrat dichotomy that leaves most choosing between the lesser of two evils.
Doesn't that feel like why even vote then? Your vote isn't for a candidate but rather for the decision that a party has made for you? You vote for Obama in 2008 and so you are obligated to vote for him in 2012 no matter what he has done? Is that really the system that you want?

I would suggest that in order to be participatory, you have to fight back at some point. Saying, "I would lose this fight, so I must vote with the crowd." is contrary to any form of democracy. To defeat the system, at some point a sacrifice must be made. A message must be sent. Otherwise your vote is nothing more than the property of a party and the direction that they want to go.
Remember how the Bush era put us and the world into our current messes. Look at the fervor and success of the Tea Party, in spite of Obama's appeasements. Please realize that there is no way a further-left candidate can win, and a far-right win would be worse than suicide for us.
So you have quit trying and just accept the trampling of your rights as a right or left issue?
Well kinda. For this discussion left vs right goes right to the heart of who will be electable in 2012. I think that if Obama plays his cards right he can come back, win again, and perhaps even get the agenda back on track. I don't think his "failure" is all his fault. I think the American people are fickle as hell and collectively responsible for losing control of a reasonable agenda. The Tea Party proves beyond doubt (to me) how hopelessly lost "we" are, and not even a Messiah can fix that.
So sad but wise...America is just not progressive enough (or lacks the attention span) to support liberal reform.  At most, we can hope for a conservi-dem who will get part of it right.  We just cannot stay on this pipe dream neo-con American Century Plan of dominating the global market through military influence.
Pretty much what Gaytor said.

Bush was an awful president, and the worst thing this country could have had as an overseer to response to terrorism along with the war in Iraq. He was just a pawn though. He's an idiot, and was played like a fiddle to initiate bills, a with us or against us mentality that polarized the country, and sped things along in a Shock Doctrine.

Does that excuse Obama for his absolute betrayal to his voters? Especially ones who crossed party lines after being betrayed by Bush and looked to Obama to restore civil liberties as he so fervently promised?

I honestly don't know if I can pull the trigger like Gaytor and vote for Palin or any other Republican ever again. The thought actually makes me physically ill. But I am pretty sick of Democrats pissing on my head and telling me it's rain.
Doesn't that feel like why even vote then? Your vote isn't for a candidate but rather for the decision that a party has made for you?

Pretty much. Obama can't do much to effect change without the support of his party. And his party may not agree with his singular goals on every issue. The failure of Obama on the rights issue is really a failure of Democrats as a whole.

And why vote? I often wonder. My county always goes to the Republicans as does, often enough, my entire state. My vote for President is not counted where it matters.
I accept your notion of the problem. It's real. But so are people in jail that haven't been given a day in court. It wouldn't be a bully pulpit if there were consequences of actions. Politicians today do what they want free of consequence, and that's what gives them the bully pulpit. Take it back. Tell the party that you want a better candidate. If they don't believe you, they'll just go back to doing what they want. Stand up and be counted.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service