January 28, 201016 yr While there may have been some wire-taps that were outside the bounds of the act, no one has been arrested and gone to jail unfairly. So, the fact that no one was arrested or unjustly convicted somehow mitigates the fact that there were illegal wiretaps?
January 28, 201016 yr Give these same people an alternative and it WILL make a difference. And you know this for certain how?
January 28, 201016 yr I'm still looking for an answer to my question regarding how he violated the separation of powers. I don't think it was a violation of the sep of pow, but the criticism of the Surpreme Court (as I understand what was said) was very stupid and ill advised. For what it's worth, I think we can agree that President Obama didn't viciously attack the Supreme Court decision. But I think he made it clear that he felt they were wrong and then tried to make their decision look even worse by predicting that the ruling will create all kinds of horrible problems for our country in a Chicken Little style. Again, I think it was imprudent of him to do so. He made similar (actually stronger comments) on the day the decision was issued. See link: http://thepage.time.com/obama-statement-on-citizens-united-v-fec/. What I found amusing, actually more like disappointing, was the fact that in the list of entities that now will have the ability to spend big bucks to undermine the influence of "average Americans" (who ever in Hades they are), he conveniently left out the word "unions". For a man that ran on a platform of of change, it's become apparent to me that changing the extremely political way federal elected officials act, was not one of those changes. In order for this country to maintain the rule of law, I believe that the public has to have the highest regard for the judiciary. That is undermined, in my opinion, when a President publicly criticizes the Supreme Court for being wrong. The public criticism "invites" the Chief Justice to publicly respond to Obama's comments and to explain why the Supreme Court made their decision. I hope that the Chief Justice does not do so and I doubt that he will. It's bad enough when the Executive and Legislative leaders publicly criticize one another. This country does not need the Judiciary to join into the fray. By the way, I would have the same feelings if the Chief Justice held a national press conference and criticized Obama's agenda to reform health care (or any other of his policies) as being wrong and I believe you would too. Obama could/should have simply said that the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue, that he believes that some sort of rules need to be in place, and that he will work with Congress to see if rules can be developed that are in conformance with the Constitution. The sensational comments about the Supreme Court's decision giving a green light to a stampede of special interest money in our politics was, in a word, foolish. And what really bothers me is that his comments were not some off the cuff response to a question thrown out of the blue at him. Rather, they were deliberated on and then delivered. For the record, I didn't watch the State of the Union address, but I did read a transcript of what he said. For those familiar with me on here, I don't listen to speeches by politicians, President or not. I place no value in what they say and total value in what they do. Hence, there is no reason to listen to them.
January 28, 201016 yr Author So, the fact that no one was arrested or unjustly convicted somehow mitigates the fact that there were illegal wiretaps? No. The system is not perfect. Yet no one has unjustly gone to jail or even charged. Meanwhile our nation has been protected. I also do not believe we will stop everything, there may well be future atttacks that succeed. Bush put the act into place and even Obama supported its renewal. Although I do not trust him with his feel-good attitude to fully protect us. Hopefully those in The CIA or FBI will do their jobs.
January 28, 201016 yr For the record, I didn't watch the State of the Union address, but I did read a transcript of what he said. For those familiar with me on here, I don't listen to speeches by politicians, President or not. I place no value in what they say and total value in what they do. Hence, there is no reason to listen to them. Ahh...if only you represented the majority. :idunno: I'm not convinced that Obama is a "leader". I'm not convinced that he demands the respect a POTUS should from the congress and senate, both democrats and republicans. Perhaps I'm wrong.
January 28, 201016 yr No. The system is not perfect. Yet no one has unjustly gone to jail or even charged. Meanwhile our nation has been protected. I also do not believe we will stop everything, there may well be future atttacks that succeed. Bush put the act into place and even Obama supported its renewal. Although I do not trust him with his feel-good attitude to fully protect us. Hopefully those in The CIA or FBI will do their jobs. I'm still stuck on the fact that for you it's ok for something to be illegal as long as no one is unjustly convicted. I'll try to get past that to get to the rest of your comments. That may take me some time though.
January 28, 201016 yr Give these same people an alternative and it WILL make a difference. No. Throwing money at this is no solution. The only alternative they settle for is power.
January 28, 201016 yr I don't think it was a violation of the sep of pow, but the criticism of the Surpreme Court (as I understand what was said) was very stupid and ill advised. For what it's worth, I think we can agree that President Obama didn't viciously attack the Supreme Court decision. But I think he made it clear that he felt they were wrong and then tried to make their decision look even worse by predicting that the ruling will create all kinds of horrible problems for our country in a Chicken Little style. Again, I think it was imprudent of him to do so. He made similar (actually stronger comments) on the day the decision was issued. See link: http://thepage.time.com/obama-statement-on-citizens-united-v-fec/. What I found amusing, actually more like disappointing, was the fact that in the list of entities that now will have the ability to spend big bucks to undermine the influence of "average Americans" (who ever in Hades they are), he conveniently left out the word "unions". For a man that ran on a platform of of change, it's become apparent to me that changing the extremely political way federal elected officials act, was not one of those changes. In order for this country to maintain the rule of law, I believe that the public has to have the highest regard for the judiciary. That is undermined, in my opinion, when a President publicly criticizes the Supreme Court for being wrong. The public criticism "invites" the Chief Justice to publicly respond to Obama's comments and to explain why the Supreme Court made their decision. I hope that the Chief Justice does not do so and I doubt that he will. It's bad enough when the Executive and Legislative leaders publicly criticize one another. This country does not need the Judiciary to join into the fray. By the way, I would have the same feelings if the Chief Justice held a national press conference and criticized Obama's agenda to reform health care (or any other of his policies) as being wrong and I believe you would too. Obama could/should have simply said that the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue, that he believes that some sort of rules need to be in place, and that he will work with Congress to see if rules can be developed that are in conformance with the Constitution. The sensational comments about the Supreme Court's decision giving a green light to a stampede of special interest money in our politics was, in a word, foolish. And what really bothers me is that his comments were not some off the cuff response to a question thrown out of the blue at him. Rather, they were deliberated on and then delivered. For the record, I didn't watch the State of the Union address, but I did read a transcript of what he said. For those familiar with me on here, I don't listen to speeches by politicians, President or not. I place no value in what they say and total value in what they do. Hence, there is no reason to listen to them. We agree in general. It was , indeed, ill-advised. I was bothered more by those that stood up and applauded. I'm not as bothered by a sitting President criticizing a decision by any court. Heck, didn't President Reagan criticize decisions that didn't go along with his pro-life stance? I was OK with that and I'm OK with any other President expressing his viewpoint.
January 28, 201016 yr Since it was an attack on American freedom, what has Obama done with it to make you trust him more? Or do you just trust him more to lead this attack on American freedom?:lol: :lol: :lol: :thumb:
January 28, 201016 yr No. Throwing money at this is no solution. The only alternative they settle for is power. Simply not true.
January 28, 201016 yr Author I'm still stuck on the fact that for you it's ok for something to be illegal as long as no one is unjustly convicted. I'll try to get past that to get to the rest of your comments. That may take me some time though. Where the wire-taps that were eventually considered done illegally intentional or unintentional? If it can be proven that there was an effort by some in the government to violate individual rights, these people should be investigated. Or were the violations at first thought to be within the bounds of the law, but later found to be violating the law, unintentionally. That is what that needs to be determined. We know that sometimes officials become overzealous and go beyond what is allowed. Not just with the Patriot Act, but with many laws on the books.
January 28, 201016 yr Simply not true. You REALLY believe that? Yes. RM, do you have anything to back up your belief that providing them with "hope", will certainly make a difference?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.