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: 582

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Haha, good thinking! There might also have to be a way to apply a lighter to anything sticking out that looks like it could be the end of a fuse.

Please stick out your tongue into that receptacle and say "ahh", sir! And so on...

You've boiled it down so well as always. The Caucasian is here whining about the rights of Asian and Middle-Easterners not getting trials, getting kidnapped, gays not be able to marry, all of us being searched including the whites. But for you, it was about the whites. My response. 


There's a word for that type of thinking. 

If I were an alien from another star system and had a degree in alien sociology I think I'd be writing down in my notes right now how humans are so inept at electing the right people, and then they whine and demonize whoever they elect. It's practically a barbaric way to conduct civilization, probably rooted in our tribalistic tendencies.
I should apologize for using the word "whine" because I didn't mean it against anyone personally. I just meant it in terms of how we humans complain about something without actually having a viable solution in mind. I still admit that I see no simple, viable solution on the horizon, so I'm effectively just whining here, myself.
The viable solution is to vote someone else in or have other parties. But as you can see from the most recent responses, only a vote for Democrats or Republicans is considered valid and this country feels powerless to do anything else about it. There are viable options, our citizenry is simply gutless. Principles... nope. Don't need to stand for those!

It's not a matter of Democrat vs. Republican, conservative vs. liberal. It's about politicians keeping Americans scared to get blown up on a plane, or releasing terrorists back into the world. Obama inherited an office in shambles, and he's doing the best he can. Also, he's got to play the political game, giving up on some of his promises and conceding to the opposition in order to get something more important passed. Yes, he hasn't come out and said "gays should be allowed to marry on a national level" but in a recent speech he did say that the issue of marriage is and has always been an issue of the state, not the national government. So he's not against gay marriage, he's just leaving it up to the states to decide.

As far as Guantanemo goes, I'm sure it would be closed now if there were any room on court dockets to get each prisoner a trial and a cell in a prison to put them. I'm sure Obama wants to try every one of those people, but he can't. And releasing them is an even worse idea. Imagine if he released all of them, and then one or some of them went on to commit acts of terrorism on our country or another? It would be an international catastrophe. Then Obama would indirectly have the blood of whoever died in those attacks on his hands. Yeah, it sucks that those prisoners are stuck in jail without a trial, but we have no other choice.

I see it this way. It doesn't matter who is in office, we the people will always have to face the idea that in order for us to be secure, we have to give up some of our liberties. You can't be free and secure, you have to find a healthy balance. Sadly, the TSA has taken things too far, but if it wasn't for the Shoebomber and the Underwear Bomber, they wouldn't be searching people's diapers and crotches. Another problem they face is the fact that they can't profile. If profiling were allowed, only people who look or act like terrorists would be inspected. So everyone suffers for the acts of a few. It's been like that since grade school. And it would cost the TSA too much to train all of their employees on profiling techniques and pay them more than $9 an hour. So, we are stuck again at this crossroad, do you want to be free or secure?

Obama wants to "get each prisoner a trial". That's a projection, and it's not true. Obama called for a ban to military tribunals in January of 2009. Obama. They are going to move forward with trials now, but this is anything but a speedy trial. It's unimportant until it's you that has been imprisoned for 9 years without a trial, attorney, or family. There are innocent people there, and that's cool as long as you feel secure? Does that really sit well with you? 

You suggest that the TSA is going too far. So whom is in charge of TSA? Janet Napalitano. And whom does she answer to directly? Barack Obama. I don't know why I'd excuse him. Beyond that, I've asked this a number of times here, why does Ben Gurion not have pat downs of all passengers? (passive security measures) Why does Aeroloft not have bombings? Sulimov Dogs are fantastic searchers and they don't even need to have the bags put anywhere specific, just let the dogs roam. Our methods are unnecessary as demonstrated by much more dangerous parts of the world. You may even be able to argue that they are ineffective in that they don't deter while other countries are so effective that attempts at terrorism on airlines have virtually stopped.

As to this question, "Do you want to be free or secure?" Free. 

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security"
Ben Franklin

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

~Ben Franklin (as quoted by R. Jackson, 1759)

"The price of Essential Liberty is Justice to purchase Permanent Safety".


Side note: Perhaps a good idea to at least quote correctly?

I'm so glad you are that confident in your sources.

The problem is: every quote I wish to invoke has at least a dozen versions here and there on the Internet and, perhaps, half a dozen different attributions. Since the idea is perfectly clear, I'm afraid I'm not prepared to spend half my waking hours reesearching such entries in order to pick and judge which version I am most inclined to believe.

On the other hand, believing that ones own words are worthy of being quoted is more than a little gauche.


"(...) I am most inclined to believe."

Because accuracy is less important than finding something which corresponds with your position (aka Confirmation Bias). Gotcha. :)

I see, so R. Jackson appeared to you and gave you a personal (written) guarantee that is EXACTLY what Ben Franklin said, eh? Lucky you. The rest of us depend upon "secondary" sources. And where they differ (which they VERY often do) we have to use our judgement.

"accuracy"? - horseshit


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service