The hypocrisy from you (which I suppose I wasn't explicit on), is that you felt indefinitely detaining foreign enemy combatants was unconstitutional and against international law. But you had no problem with Obama targeting American citizens for assassination. Clearly something doesn't compute here. This is a subject in which we wasted quite a lot of words over the course of years over at the Muche. The two comparable issues from the Bush era were Hamdi and Padilla; both American citizens who both were in military detention and eventually shifted to US courts because they were US citizens. That was an action I agreed with for that reason. You however, wanted every captured terrorist shifted to US courts and given due process of a US criminal defendant. Except of course for US citizens who can be assassinated. So while agree that Al Awlaki was a bad guy, and I've shed no tears in his passing, I don't know the basis in law or the constitution that allows us to target him for death in that way. There is certainly a legitimate case to be made that he was guilty of treason, or even that he had taken up arms against the US, which would have made his killing in a fire fight perfectly legal and legitimate. But an assassination list of US citizens isn't. Don't pretend that if Bush had been the one signing that death order you would still be supporting this action. We both know better.
again you are not listening to what I'm telling you and instead arguing with the person you think I am in your head.. Padilla and Hamdi? Sure, they are like Al Awlaki.. just like him in fact, there isn't a shred of difference in the 3 of them.. Oy Vey! you are literally bringing apples into an orange fight..
Let me try this... I agree with the death penalty right?.. but, I don't know that I would agree that Bob Ward deserves to die for his crime.In fact, I would be completely against it.. I would probably even picket the jail.... but I damn sure don't have a problem with Ted Bundy getting to ride the lightning...
see the difference... Padilla and Hamdi are Bob Ward... Al Awlaki is Bundy. If you can't see why I'm good with one and not the other, then you're not trying hard enough or you just want to argue Bush-blah Obama-Blah, R/D blah..for arguements sake...
It's not like we, as a country, don't have 'hypocritical' views either.. Just look at Sammy the Bull.. he gets immunity from killing 7 people.. why? to get John Gotti....Why? Because Sammy the bulls are a dime a dozen, but Gotti? He's the mastermind behind them..
Padilla and Hamdi, they are criminals who did terrorist things..Al Awlaki is the mastermind who orchestrated,funded,rallied whatever you want to call it.. he was the head of the snake instead of it's body..There is no shame in killing him, there is very much shame in indefinitely detaining Padilla and Hamdi..
I can't be any more clear.. you will choose to stay inside your bubble by clinging to the flawed theory that if it was Bush.. blah blah blah.. you will cling to that because that is how you react to everything and anything.. it's how your party reacts.. even when given your own policy from a president with a D after his name, you go against yourself and oppose it.. I do not mind being called a hypocrite, not at all..never have since I don't see things as black and white, somethings are for the greater good even when they are bad. It's the same thing we've gone over in the past, I don't like torturing people, but if there is a missing child or tickeing bomb, torture that fucker until he bleeds information.. you, otoh, live so staunchly in the black and white that you twist yourself into a pretzel for fear of being outed as a hypocrite.
well go on with your bad self..
It's hard to know what McCain might actually have done in office, I can only go by his platform. And on that, it was far superior. His healthcare plan was fairly good. I had some quibbles with it, but compared to what we actually got, McCain's plan was 100 times superior.
if you think McCain would have come up with comprehensive healthcare reform, then I finally understand why you voted for Palin and Rick Scott.. you'll believe anything an R tells you even when you know they would never, ever... EVER do it..
besides that, I'll use your own reasoning against you.. the Dems controlled both houses, McCain's plan wouldn't have passed the way he wanted either..
McCain's economic plan was a 300 billion plan to fix the housing market. I thought then, and still think now, that getting the housing market fixed was key to economic recovery.
wouldn't have happened.. You would have been 1st in line with Gryff and Gordo on each butt-cheeks whining about people getting something for nothing. Rush and Hannity would have been crying afoul of all the brown/black people getting gov't assistance.. the chant would have been "Let them fail"... Just like it was with the auto baillout.. You would have been against helping people who got into the mess on their own.. you know it, I know it. Anything else would be hypocritical of you..
Then you would have been screaming 'free market' because the only way to fix the problem was to enforce regulation.. sure, a Republican regulating wall street HAhhaaaHA!
Unless you call this recovery, in which case, everything is fine, nothing to see here.
it's sure not as bad as it was in 2009-10... that's all I know.
I guess I don't believe any President would have done the same stupid things that Obama did. I mean, I knew Obama's plan wouldn't work and why, and I'm not even the only one. As small as this board is, I'm not the only one who saw what was going to happen. So why would I think any President would have come to the same conclusions as Obama?
You're not a president, neither is any pundit anyone puts up there..The ones you listened to were there to oppose Obama, which is why you listened, you wouldn't have heard them if they agreed.. You would have disagreed with Obama if he used your own ideas.. you would then be calling for the plan he did use...But You don't know the behind the scenes of what can/cant' and will not ever be done.. Your idea of a path could have worked out worse, of course we'll never know so you can claim to it would have worked because you know it would.. just like you to be on the 'safe' side of things..
There was only one path, altho he should have asked for more stim..he did what he could with what he had.. same as now, you can pretend your idea would have worked, but you would have put millions out of work and that would have destroyed the majority of us.
unfortunately we only have 3 sources of spending, gov't, private and consumers and when the latter two aren't spending, the gov't has to.. you can put up as many graphs as you want, the fact is I can 'tighten my belt' as tight as I want, but if there isn't any money coming in it doesn't matter what I cut I'm going to starve...
No one was spending.. gov't had to.
