Obama Signs-Off on Official Birth of Fascism in the USA

[stopdoingstuff]

It's the lazy P.ie "but what about..." argument technique. It's very irritating.

It is a bit, at least when we consider the importance of the issue at stake- the very foundation of what it means to live in a free society is now under threat.

[Verhofstadt]

Worrying legislation, the bipartisan support is also worrying.

However to purport that this is a an "Obama bill" is disengenuous.. especially considering the levels of Republican support.

I'd argue that if the Democrats still held both houses the legislation would be very different..

[Analyzer]

The Moneygall peasants will be devastated

They voted for the Biffo who did so much harm to our sovereignty and freedom.

It is fitting that one of their own should turn out to be just as useful to corporate masters....

[Verhofstadt]

On another note.. is this simply codifying the patriot act or does it differ greatly?

I recall the orginal Patriot Act (opposed by lots of Obama supporting liberals may I add) was very similar.

[Analyzer]

Worrying legislation, the bipartisan support is also worrying.

However to purport that this is a an "Obama bill" is disengenuous.. especially considering the levels of Republican support.

I'd argue that if the Democrats still held both houses the legislation would be very different..

You are imagining stuff there, trying to convince yourself that the Democrats are not at fault. Pure fairytale fantasys stuff.

The dems are up to their necks in it.

[owedtojoy]

Don't be silly he's a socialist you fool, that makes it all OK you dimwit. It's only when right wing politicians bring in nasty legislation that we should be worried!!!!

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who voted against this measure, is an admitted socialist. There is no evidence that Obama is.

This law in itself is a worrying development, but not the end of the world as we know it ... the official position is that the President already had these powers since the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) Against Terrorists Act of September 18th, 2001.

This sounds suspiciously like the hot air and hypocrisy expended by Republicans over Bill Clinton's assumption of "dictatorial powers", which quickly disappeared when Bush-Cheney got their a*ses into office.

I would certainly trust President Obama with these powers more than I would trust the Bush-Cheney gang, whose acolytes might return to office next year. Note that this law could not have passed without majority Republican support in the Congress. In fact, the whole thing is a Republican-managed effort. President Obama did not seek the codification of these powers - they were pushed by Republicans in expectation that a Republican President will be able to use them next year in some sort of renewed heroic drive against Islamic terrorism.

You can't get away from the fact that Congress jointly authorises laws, on which the President either negotiates compromises, signs or vetoes. In this case, he did the first. So every snipe at the President should be accompanied by one against Congress, unless (as I suspect) the poster is a complete hypocrite, seeking renewed powers for people who are jointly responsible for this law.

In practice, this is not much different to the Internment without Trial laws which still remain on the statute books in Britain and Ireland, and there are similar laws in most democracies.

[Analyzer]

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who voted against this measure, is an admitted socialist. There is no evidence that Obama is.

If ShowBama is not a Socialist, then why are you supporting him ?

[MacBeth]

And yet he isn't the one who just signed this bill while having the power to veto it, what you're saying is totally irrelevant to the issue being discussed here.

It's not. The premise of the OP seems to be Obama is a fascist and only the Paul's can save us. As hypocritical as Obama is, the answer is not loons like the Paul family.

[stopdoingstuff]

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who voted against this measure, is an admitted socialist. There is no evidence that Obama is.

This law in itself is a worrying development, but not the end of the world as we know it ... the official position is that the President already had these powers since the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) Against Terrorists Act of September 18th, 2001.

This sounds suspiciously like the hot air and hypocrisy expended by Republicans over Bill Clinton's assumption of "dictatorial powers", which quickly disappeared when Bush-Cheney got their a*ses into office.

I would certainly trust President Obama with these powers more than I would trust the Bush-Cheney gang, whose acolytes might return to office next year. Note that this law could not have passed without majority Republican support in the Congress. In fact, the whole thing is a Republican-managed effort. President Obama did not seek the codification of these powers - they were pushed by Republicans in expectation that a Republican President will be able to use them next year in some sort of renewed heroic drive against Islamic terrorism.

You can't get away from the fact that Congress jointly authorises laws, on which the President either negotiates compromises, signs or vetoes. In this case, he did the first. So every snipe at the President should be accompanied by one against Congress, unless (as I suspect) the poster is a complete hypocrite, seeking renewed powers for people who are jointly responsible for this law.

In practice, this is not much different to the Internment without Trial laws which still remain on the statute books in Britain and Ireland, and there are similar laws in most democracies.

Indefininte preventive detention without trial was supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, and no one forced Obama to sign it. And it is certainly not like any internment law here- it is indefinite and it is a massive expansion of executive power. Under the provisions, even simple things like more than 7 days of food is regarded as suspect behavior. I simply cannot believe you are sugarcoating this. This is deadly serious.

[stopdoingstuff]

It's not. The premise of the OP seems to be Obama is a fascist and only the Paul's can save us. As hypocritical as Obama is, the answer is not loons like the Paul family.

The OP couldn't give two fks who saves us as long as we are saved. The issue is much bigger than some senator from Kentucky. I am astounded that a bill has been passed that allows the governemnt to lock people up for no actual reason, with no actual trial,and for no set duration, and your focus is on Rand Paul. Jesus.