Why Obama Needs to be a One Term President

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?

Tags: Barrack Obama, Civil Rights

1 member likes this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Arcus on July 9, 2011 at 7:18am

"Had some success in "finding something which corresponds with your position", have you, Arcus?"

Indeed I did, I even managed to quote it correctly for accuracy. :)

"At least I don't have the effrontery to go around quoting myself."

Perhaps that is because you have yet to present a novel idea?

"I invite you to go back and see which of us started the "critical" bullshit."

Why Obama Needs to be a One Term President

Posted by Gaytor on November 21, 2010 at 11:17am in Politics, Economics, Civil and Reproductive Rights, International Conflicts

"This is an on-line forum - not a scholarly work."

All my work is scholarly in nature and reviewed to not be inaccurate.

"An informal writing style is entirely appropriate."

Fuck yeah I agree. Doesn't excuse being inaccurate tho.

"If you've got something to say about the CONTENT of my posts"

I believe my initial criticism was of Gayto's butchering of Ben Franklin. Then you complained about the content of my post...

"you're more than welcome to express your opinion and I'll respect it. But if you're here to prove how pedantic you can be, please just skip my posts"

So I'm 'more than welcome to express my opinion', though not if I pay attention to detail. In that case, I'm apparently not welcomed to do so.

And lastly, thank you for thinking my attitude is superior:

"Bring your superior attitude (...) your posts I shall read." ~Mike Long

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MikeLong on July 9, 2011 at 8:07am

Let's open this up. Can ANYBODY tell me what the hell this means?:

"The price of Essential Liberty is justice to purchase permanent safety".
~Arcus

I'm sure Arcus could tell us, but then having to explain yourself hardly makes it a quotable quote, now does it?
Who started this "critical" bullshit? Your answer was to name this thread. Huh?
"All my work is scholarly in nature"
Do you really believe anyone is impressed? Sad.
"Doesn't excuse being inaccurate tho." It sure as hell does - if your idea of "accuracy" is nitpicking punctuation.
"I believe my initial criticism was of Gayto's butchering of Ben Franklin."
Grossly inaccurate. IIIiii quoted Franklin. No one but you had any problem deriving the necessary meaning. Your response was to cut and paste 50 versions of the same quote. No one was impressed by that either, I promise you.
"though not if I pay attention to detail"
Correct - when your "detail" has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand and is nothing but pure pedantry.
"thank you for thinking my attitude is superior:"
I think you may know as well as any reader the meaning of the phrase "superior attitude" in this context, but I'll help you out. It means you're an ass. I've seen you prove this to many others. You've now convinced me that you are incorrigible. Please take this as pejorative.
Goodbye.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on July 9, 2011 at 8:31am

"Liberty": The right to do what the fuck you want to without anyone stopping you.

"Justice": The removal of said personal liberties in favor of the rights of society as a whole.

"Safety": Protection of the individual from those who seek unjust liberties .

Some people become married, thus signing away the liberty of private property (if your spouse goes bankrupt, so do you) in favor of a marriage contract (justice) to increase your safety (having a legally regarded spouse to support you).

Not a liberty I'm ever prepared to suffer to justice seeing as a strict pre-nup is the first thing I'll demand if I'm forced into it, but that's just me. :)

(Though I've already signed away the liberty of personal revenge in favor of the justice system's revenge to increase my safety from others willing to take justice into their own hands.)

Permalink Reply by Kevin on July 8, 2011 at 7:35pm

As soon as I read your topic I knew what was following...some of you Americans are truly confused...your countries past leaders caused everyones need for this type of security measures and you blame the guy coming in, the world loves him but you hate him and gave up on him cause a few out of millions were insulted...and we all know if there was a bomb you would blame security for not doing a better job...a few idiots at an airport carry their positions to far and out of the 10's of millions who fly daily you think one or two concerns make up the need for revolt...its your American policies which creates wars, as I am not sure if you know what that statement actually means, "American Foriegn Policy"...it means your big business goes into another country, pick a fight , make up excuses to invade and do so for the expansion of your big business and then send over the poor to die for that expansion, the whole time calling the poor defenders of that country "terrorists"...your innocent and therefor you remain blind to how the world sees you...or are you not aware that wars are caused by someone wanting to invade another for its wealth regardless of excuse...its all through out history, take a few lessons...but stop feeling sorry for yourselves...and what is this last statement about finding the one who always stands up for you...since when has any politician done that anywhere? And as far as your "junk" I doubt it would cause any concern!

PS; after all these years all of a sudden gays wanting to get married is a big deal, besides in a bible thumping group like your country, if you want to be inpower you have to favor those fools...you know the ones...the ones you and I argue on this site, ya those ones, they run your country and if your a politician guess what is the sad truth about what you have to do and the reason being...you and yours need to get out there and get atheist voting and when you become the majority of voters guess what...you'll have homosexuals swinging from the chandeliers...but if the majority of them work at the airports...it will not matter if they change the rules of the search...they are going to want to feel your junk, so pucker up baby and get that vote!

But stop blaming the guy who is doing the best job for your entire country along with the world, he is correcting what someone else did as he fights with thumpers who control your country, give him some room...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chuck B. on July 8, 2011 at 7:42pm

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/11/3/

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on July 8, 2011 at 8:46pm

Yet another person whom took away one point out of six. Thanks for playing.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on July 9, 2011 at 10:52am

Actually, Islamic terrorism and extremism is not the result of U.S. policies - it is the result of the quran guided by the hadith. Remember, we were attacked on 9/11 and time and time before. Don't blame the nation or our policies when it is not warranted. In fact, who did India attack for the Islamic extremists to have been killing millions of Indians over the centuries?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. del Toro on July 8, 2011 at 9:24pm

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the guy.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin on July 9, 2011 at 1:03am

Ok. I will use periods. Point taken.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike on July 8, 2011 at 9:52pm

i do like kucinich. he's a firecracker on the floor. i love hearing him speak and frankly i'm sick of Obama giving in to these right wing neo-cons. whats up with the Dem. party they are just sitting idly by while the Rep. are letting us fall. we need strong representation in the white house and also in congress. Obama has let me down i'm kind of a shame to say i voted for him

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. del Toro on July 8, 2011 at 11:28pm

Oh the perils of being the most powerful country in the world. We asked for it... or did we? Not really, we were actually trying to mind our own goddamned business, but the Japanese insisted (well, we kind of cut off their oil supply) and we obliged. So here we are playing "World Police" and swinging a very big stick.

It's a shame that we focus on the rougher points while ignoring the good that we are doing in the world. No one seems to talk about the humanitarian missions we do throughout the world. I am currently on one and it feels good to be a part of something like this. We've been doing Pacific Partnership deployments since 2004. Please check it out. I never knew about it until I became a part of it. More people should know about this sort of stuff.

It sounds like Ron Paul would be a good candidate for you. You may find his statements on the TSA as well as other issues such as the regime change in Belarus appealing. I haven't looked into him much, but I know I don't agree with all his stances. We've got a little over a year to see who is going to step up to the plate and gain our vote.

“Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same policies.”
— Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MikeLong on July 9, 2011 at 12:20am

I'm an ex-pat, but I agree that the U.S. does a lot of good in the world. But no one talks about it - even if they're willing to conceed it. Why? It's just not all that interesting. We (pretty much everybody) talk about the things we'd change, not about the things we agree with.

I disagree with Carroll Quigley, though. The new right in the States does NOT have "approximately the same policies" as the left (not including Obama and the "blue dog" Democrats). The right actually wants to take us all back a century or two when workers had NO rights and barely enough to keep them alive, much less health and dignity.

The Republican Party has essentially two constituencies: the extremely rich (including the wannabes) and people stupid enough to believe that giving the rich tax breaks will, in some way, benefit the rest of us.

The right wants desperately to retain God and to improve his position because God is on their side; and, with God on your side, everything you do is correct.

What Nixon's administration learned is that there are enough stupid people to swing virtually any election. And it's true. If you look at the standard bell graph of intelligence with an IQ of 100 in the middle, you find that about 25% have an IQ of less than 86. So even though these people may need assistance with basic mental chores like balancing a checkbook, they still have the right to vote. All you need to do is tell these people that the other side is against God, and they're yours. No. These days the right has an entirely different agenda.

▶ Reply

‹ Previous
1
…
12
13
14
15
16
…
21
Next ›

RSS

Welcome to
Think Atheist

Get Started Now
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

What's new today

1	I want to get off now.
2	Accosted
3	America - "Love It or Leave It"
4	Bipolar Disorder and Art
5	'Smite Club'
6	Here lies an Atheist. All dressed up and no place to go.
7	"Once We Free Ourselves of the Shackles of Religion, and Bible-based Big Bang Theology...
8	Christian Man Claims Native American Statue On License Plate Violates His Freedom Of Religion, Sues Oklahoma
9	This is the best way I've ever seen to teach someone evolution
10	How common is this?