Rachel Maddow, Ardent Obama Supporter, Shocked!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by windcatcher, Jun 27, 2009.

  1. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thanx for putting these up. Seems Obama will make the Patriot Act look like a minor inconvenience. Remember a certain poster who said we were going to have a "FREE" nation now that he's in ?
     
  3. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    You see, this is why I have always maintained that the acts of the Bush/Cheney administration set a bad precedent, regardless of which party is in power. Once power is taken, it is not easily given up, regardless of who is in the White House. Will those who thought it was fine for Bush to push for the USA PATRIOT Act also defend this Obama proposal?

    This is one of several areas where I strongly part ways with the President. However, I imagine this will be applauded by certain elements of the "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" crowd. Then again, maybe not, since their hatred of Mr. Obama likely supercedes their support for the policy.

    In any case, I sincerely hope that this doesn't get implemented. Mr. Obama will be getting a letter from me on this subject. I suppose the only silver lining in this is that the prolonged detainees won't be subject to torture.
     
    #3 Magnetic Poles, Jun 27, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2009
  4. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
  5. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would also add this is why America needs two, vibrant and mainstream parties, to keep one another honest.
     
  6. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well I suspect one will be making a comeback in 2010.
     
  7. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trouble is, we don't have 2 mainstream parties. We have the corporate interests and their fundamentalist lackies on the right; and some severely overreaching extremists on the left. The debate has gone on since the founding of the nation...individual vs. societal morality and responsibility. The dichotomy and gap have only grown.

    I also see the GOP as a rudderless ship with no vision. The Dems will have to royally screw up to make a comeback as you have described.
     
  8. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    No doubt that will be all that is required. "bo" will listen to you

    But in case he doesn't i hope he till give the boys a bath now and then. I guess that is torture to some, We have already seen that some prefer GTMO to freedom. Perhaps "bo" will have to sweeten the $200 million to Palau with another to the Uighurs.
     
  9. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doubtful, but as a citizen I have the right (and duty) to inform my elected leaders of my concerns.
     
  10. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    72
    Her idol Bush? Have you ever watched the Rachel Maddow show? She's liberal with a capital L. I'm not saying she wouldn't throw water on Bush if he were aflame, but she might have to think about it!

    I'm glad to see consistency from Dr. Maddow here, even if I disagree with her on some issues (not this one).
     
  11. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, what passed as the Patriot Act, was actually drawn up and prepared for passage during the Clinton administration, and was waiting in the wings for a suitable 'crisis' situation to bring it forward and help its passage. The people who design their plans for the future and help to draft such enabling laws, very carefully conceal and selectively share their preparations to few of an inner circle. Many voluminous bills are prepared and sit in committee..... or in the offices of a few in the Congress or Senate, for them to introduce to committee and to the legislature when the timing is optimal for passage. Often times, even those in committee later reply to questions concerning their endorsement and passage, that their information and briefings were limited and they lacked full knowledge of the total content of a bill.

    This is one reason why The Patriot Act got more publicity and opposition after passage, but bipartisan support and controlled or reduced attention before passage. When one has representatives of both parties attesting to the merits of passage, or giving a tongue in check edorsement by speaking to the fears of necessity while staying silent on their concerns, is it no wonder that WE are not being served by either party. Instead of blaming it on either party or administration (although we should hold them accountable)..... we need to consider the people behind both parties which are formatting the structure of government and control over the future and establishing the step by step controls in the present which will enable their plans to unfold.

    Freedom, JC: same ole tricks? Your labeling someone a Bush supporter doesn't make it so...... but it shows ignorance.

    I'm not endorsing the unlimited detention of potential terrorist begun under the Bush administration, but I do see a difference between FOREIGN vs DOMESTIC, with the latter being a greater threat to OUR constitutional rights than the former: With or without 'oversight', neither insures us of any confidence that abuses wont occur. While Obama seems to claim that 'more' people will be involved in making these determinations and judgements of oversight as to when extended detention without charges or conviction, it could be said, even if not recognized by Obama, that Bush also had his own idea of advisors and oversight in place.

    Both present and past administrations show their response to puppeteers pulling their strings: If anything, while Bush obediantly pushed through legislative agendas with bipartisan support of Congress, he exercised a degree of restraint concerning the extensive reach of executive power. We did not see continuing increases in GITMO detainees, nor did we see our citizens being targeted and detained based merely on idealogical differences with the administration: The unfortunate thing that DID occur with the executive power and detention allowance........ it tested the mettle and tolerance of the American public to accept detention and enhanced interrogation techniques and the strength of the opposition.

    Unfortunately, like the abortion issue, where some of those who are opposed to abortions often get divided in strength by name calling and labeling each other, thus sterotyping along party lines or divisions of Christianity or religion, and dilute the strength of their voice and power: On both sides, people who accept such labels and divisions get caught up in either defending the sterotypical label and weakening the strength of their opposition or they invalidate others who are in agreement along a particular point by sterotyping them with a label to force a defense.

    The posters here are typical of the population at large and the media in particular: It may not be racial bigotry...... but it is bigotry all the same: Not all Republicans were for the Patriot Act. Not all Democrats were opposed. Not all Democrats are for abortion. Not all Republicans are opposed. If a vote for Obama is defended by those who say they oppose abortion, then it is high time that they reflect that a vote for Bush was not a blanket agreement for every action of his administration.... Nor is a vote for any administration, a vote for those bills which required bipartisan support or would not have passed.

    If these issues are important enough to oppose then they are important enough to speak louder than our labeling of ourselves or others. It doesn't hurt to point to the party platforms or particular party representatives which agree or oppose our particular position..... but our tendancy to label each other is dividing our strength and discouraging and invalidates our voices along artificial party divisions when we should be uniting above party loyalties and labels so that our voices are heard........by ALL parties and ALL potential and active politicians.
    :flower::thumbs:
     
  12. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I put her politics in the title to this thread and I'm so sorry, but it was my assumption that you could read. I do hope you will forgive me for giving you more credit.

    As for 'nasty'..... I don't think my remarks were nearly as 'nasty' as your repeated assumptions of people and labeling is...... but then we all have our own points of irritation and impatience: I admit that I have little patience for frequent postings by people who either don't read or don't comprehend and show it in their postings, and for generalizations and labels when they don't apply. Give me a little time.... and I'll think of some more to be nasty about.:laugh:
     

Share This Page

Loading...