When it comes to Obama, the joke is only on George W. Bush

You don't like this sort of political bullshit, you complain about it left and right...so....why...why...do you help perpetuate it?

You crack me up, AJ.

In order for me to believe that good exist I have to acknowledge that evil also exist. In order for me to voice my dislike about something, I have no choice but to point it out in order to do so. In order for me to make my point I sometimes have to become that which I criticize. In order to make a difference i this world I have to be willing to make sacrifices.

Regardless how much anyone wants to believe that we should do everything within our power to do the right thing in order to achieve the end results we want, sometimes we gotta be the bad guys as well to achieve the same end results.

The poster found in LA, looks to me more like its from "Dead Presidents" (the movie) than it does the joker.  Heh, maybe it's just me?

Well then I applaud you in a way, because I can't become what I criticize. It just...the chaos, disorder, mindlessness...i can't be something that i honestly think could one day destroy us. Ever see the movie idiocracy?

In what way? Hopefully an entirely positive way.

Actually I have and although it was meant to be comedy I couldnt help but notice so many similarities to how things are today compared to what lead to the future the soldier and the hooker found themselves in.

Sometimes you have to lower yourself to other peoples levels in order to give them a taste of their own medicine and so that they too can see what it's like to be on the receiving end. Democrats are currently feeling to pain of the constant questioning of their actions just like they did with Bush for 8 years. It's always different when the shoe is on the other foot, except Bush wasn't telling people to shut up and move out of the way.

dunno how i coulda missed it in that case.  i'll keep an eye out tho. 

two possibilities come to mind:

1. writers--even those at vanity fair--rarely slam their own work especially prior to publication.

2. it looks nothing at all like george bush so why bother?

a matter of how much time? think they'll run him down tomorrow? next week? 2012? all of the above? 

you're givin yourself a lotta wiggle room chaz.  after all, 'it's only a matter of time' before everything and anything happens...men fly through the air, men fly to the moon, george bush finally gets everything he deserves, and so on.

be more specific dammit.

I still disagree; I could never do it because it's against my principles to become what I disagree with.

Mhm, it's a very...enlightening. >_>

He'll (she'll?) soon replace OBL on the Most Wanted List (if he hasn't already).

Why do you say that?

Sorry, but I just don't buy this line of thought.

Altogether, now... Joke(r).

The Dept. of Homeland Sec. is following Tea Party organizers on Twitter, Facebook, etc., and monitoring their websites; the Obama cadre has a website where people can report on friends and family who strongly disapprove or express distrust of, Obama's Health care policies.

Three policemen have been disciplined for using dept. resources to run background checks on Obama; the Obama campaign and administration have an ongoing history of harrassing and ostracizing reporters who write negative stories about Obama.

The administration is calling upon union and ACORN thugs to keep informed protestors out of Town Hall meetings. The Dems find this embarrassing and disconcerting, when standard talking points and propaganda don't work, because the passionate constituents know more about the health care bill than their legislative representatives.

And what, exactly, does George Bush "deserve", after 8 years of complete security against the savages who want to kill us, an over unemployment rate of 4.7% and, right up til the last few months of his admin., a steadily-growing economy?

Your reply to this is lame KB, I expected better from you. Then again, as a defender of Obama and the Democrats, maybe this is to be expected.

Another lame attempt at turning my comments against myself. A matter of time obviously means when ever it happens but it will. But, again, I can't really expect a decent debate from people who claim to want to unite the country but do everything within their power to maintain the status quo of seperation.

Rightwingers response says it all.

First off, it's the Dept. of Homeland Security's job to moniter/deal ANY suspicious activities. If they're not keeping tabs on people they reasonably think could commit terrorist acts - then they're not doing the fucking job. No bueno.

Second, and I reiterate my belief - there is no solid factual evidence to support that they Obama and his crew are going to round anyone up, tap their phone lines, do away with dissenters, etc. (Solid evidence = official memos, hand written correspondence, et al.) I get the being cautious; I get that and even agree with it, but there's a line where caution and wisdom turn into fear and paranoia. I seriously feel that some people have crossed it.

Proof?

I'm curious, how many people here have read the official bill? (At least the most recent incarnation)

Be well, ~Alderic

I recall seeing this quote dozens of times over the last few years, from liberals opposed to Bush's policies:

"Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism"--Howard Zinn

.....except when it's directed against a liberal President's polices, I guess. Then it's "un-American", as we've been told by the DNC.

It's the Dept. of Homeland Sec.'s job to spy on America citizens who legally gather and peacefully protest---as is their Constitutional right, I might add---against government policies and ideals with which they disagree?

I seem to recall hysterical howls of protest from the Left, and political obstacles thrown up by Democrat legislators, when Bush wanted to do something similar to Mideastern immigrants and American citizens sympathizing with Islamic terrorists and suspects. And Nixon was vilified for a supposed "enemies list", and for spying on leaders of the anti-war movement. And J. Edgar Hoover's name is still mud, with those people, for that matter.

I've been to a couple Tea Parties; no swastikas, no skinheads, no Klansmen, no Brownshirts......not even a Rebel flag at the ones I attended. Yet, the Democrat proaganda ministry and the liberal gossip machine insist that's who's coming out to these events and to the Town Halls, not  passionatelyconcerned, informed American citizens who don't want to see their country Socialized. Goodness, no....it simply has to be racist, redneck doofuses being revved-up by GOP operatives "manufacturing anger". And you believe them?

You want "solid evidence"? They issued a document called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”  It focused mainly on traditional, patriotic American ideals and people, and it was quickly retracted because it offered an unvarnished glimpse into the radical liberal nature of Obama's administration.

I read it; the entire document was based upon the actions of the Left's favorite domestic terrorist/horrific aberration, Timothy McVeigh. If not for him, they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Not that they did, mind you.

I forget how many times his name is mentioned in the document.....but then, when that's really all you have to go on, I guess you have to keep hammering that nail.

This is from Australia:

 http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8686:making-conservative-a-dirty-word-napolitanos-approach-to-homeland-security-&catid=53:jones-zach&Itemid=122

http://www.patrioticdissent.net/?p=694

Oh, and yes; I've kept up on the bill.....

There's a difference between spying on your average citizen and someone that is supspect of terrorist ties/plot, etc. You know that RW. It's often said that in order to protect, you have to be suspicious of all. Logically, in due time, the agency will know that they are not a threat and go. When it comes to terrorism, yes, you cannot be sure that group X is completely legit if they've made remarks that could be seen as threatening. Think about this way:

You are a federal agent who is assigned to monitor/watch for possible terrorists. You have a group that has stated many times things that are extremely...radical and inflamatory, life threatening as well. There is reason to believe that they could and would mount an attack. This group also happens to be "right wing." What do you do? Ignore them because you might be violating a right? At what expense? Should you not monitor them?

If you think about it, security is one of those things that is a give and take. People have to be willing to give a little, in order for security from terrorist attacks. Right?

Straw man. So it's okay for people who were anti-war to be spied on? They're people expressing their views, right? So...where's the outrage? Where's the outrage when people - left or right wing - have their rights stepped on. Suspected terrorists? Phone tapping? Anyone? It should be the same standard for everyone, no matter if you agree with them ideaologically or not.

Your experiences do not equate with what things are completely. I've it on record from a friend of mine who has participated in Tea Party's for some time now, that there have been ones where it was not about disagreement with policies, but an idealogue-fest (for lack of a better term). I am not discounting your claim, or saying that all or most of the Tea Parties have been as my friend stated - but there have been cases.

I'm NOT discounting your concern for abuse of power by the government , but, there is a point where one needs to acknowledge that there is some legitimacy in a government wanting to keep an eye on any possible terrorism. What is the difference between a suspected terrorist who is a right wing person, left wing person, or Muslim?

It was not very bright, I'll admit that, but I'm curious if you realize that there was a similar report during - i believe during Bush's or Clinton's term - on left wing militia and such, and one recently as of January 29th of this year. ( Source )

I just find it interesting that when such reports are made, even though there is practical value to keep and eye on and increase awareness of radical groups that just might kill people, it's wrong when it is those who are right wing. Otherwise it seems fine. This strikes me as a double standard toward political correctness. Apparently it's not PC to issue reports on terrorism, but the bashing against those evil liberals is fine. Are we to now be PC toward all right wing groups?

Tell me, where was your, the media's, et al. when the report on left wing groups was issued? Sorry, but my belief is that - while I understand, and agree with some of your points - the media (fox perhaps) used this and blew it out of proportion.

Straw man, again.

Did you support the Patriot Act? It monitors international calls for key words in an attempt to foil terrorists. Many liberals scream blue bloody murder at it's mention, yet embrace Obama's domestic snooping. I just shake my head at the direction this country is taking, when real, outside threats are aided and abetted by progressives and perceived internal threats are meticulously searched for. The era of the Police State is here, Stalin would be proud.

Got proof? Otherwise I would say you're slandering.

No, because I felt it went way beyond the government's power, and legal/necessary means to combat what it was supposed to.

Would you say the same thing if it was a Republican in office, or republican congress doing this? Somehow, i doubt it.

Fine, but there were elements of that document which specifically targeted ideals which are often considered "conservative"....anti-abortion views, support of third-party candidates, 2nd Amendment rights.....displaying the "Don't Tread on Me" banner, for crying out loud. They were---and are--watching, and possibly trying to demonize, conservatives.

Well come on, ANY rally or demonstration, for ANY particular cause or ideal, is going to be an "idealogue-fest". Isn't that the point of a rally/demonstration, after all?

You can't help who comes to these things; they are, after all, open to the public.....if one moron wants to bring a swastika, all you can do is ask him not to display it. But I'd be willing to bet that, if the Klan or the American Nazi Party held a Tea Party, no one but their own representatives would show.

As with the 1980s anti-nuclear movement, virtually the entire 1960s anti-war movement was funded and controlled by the KGB; this was suspected back then, and confirmed in the 90s by the Venona documents.

They were keeping an eye on people whose ideals, and allies, sought to undermine the security and strength of the country. On the other hand, people like me are seeking INCREASE the strength and security of the country, a view which this administration considers subversive.

Heh...I love how so much of that with which you disagree, seems able to be dismissed with these two words, and that's it.

Agreed, though I'm curious - do you feel that the desire to protect ourselves from any and all terrorists or possible terrorists, justifies such liberal use of powers (such as wire tapping, etc.)?

Sure you can; people do it all the time. When Jew based organizations meet, they don't let a self identified neo-Nazi sit in do they? You can easily ask and enforce your desire to not have certain groups/types of people, or certain things, at a rally.

Maybe.

Mmm, there's a difference between those who express their differing views and those who seek to destroy the country. More often than not, those who protested the Vietnam war were not looking to destroy the country.

Tell me, when does differing opinions turn people into "those who want to undermine the security and strength of the country"? You have to be careful with that sort of thing because sooner or later, it becomes a filter for what is supposibly right, and destroys all differences. Think of it like george orwell's 1984, for example.

Since you've made the assertion; mind providing the specific claims and the sources?

Yes (since you must have been hiding under a rock the last 7 months).

1, Domestic policy. Janet Napolitano written communication on suspected right-wing terrorists including veterans, anti-abortionists, second amendment supporters. Must I go on? OK, dismissal of leftist voter intimidations (Black Pothers).Report your neighbor program (so they could be set straight of course).

2. International foreign policy. Closure of Gitmo, citizen rights for detainees (habeas corpus). The Obama "I'm sorry the US is so bad" tour. "Throwing Israel under the bus" tour of the middle east. The "fudge on your western European allies" tour to Russia.

Now don't be lazy AJ, do something the rest of your fellow Obama supporters don't want to do, research the topics yourself. I've looked at all the pertinent info for myself as the events occurred. I'm not doing it again for someone too lazy to look for themselves or just take the easy way out and cry "slander". My friend you've insulted your own intelligence, by questioning that topics I've mentioned where not discussed in detail on this very site. That or you can't or refuse to recall them. Cheers.

I wasn't crazy about it either. Know what else I'm not crazy about? Terrorist using our own technology as a weapon against us. Progressives and the far-left would deny us the use of what we ourselves created to keep us safe. So I figure not discussing terrorist plots on the phone is the lesser of evils in this case. Did you have anything to say on an international call that would worry you? I call overseas a lot, never had a worry. Do any of the Jihad websites hold value for you? If so, I personally want someone on our side monitoring you. BTW we are at war, many folks seem forget that small detail since it has little no impact on them (no personal sacrifice). Loose lips sink ships... as true now as it ever was, in a sense.

Why should you, you almost nothing about me. Sorry if the Stalin comment offended your leftist sensibilities. The minute a Republican comes along that does this, I will oppose it. Here's a short lesson for you, conservatives, by nature, want as small a government as possible. A police state would require lots of government involvement.

That report was no different in terms of threats than the Left wing report issued in Januar and the one issued during Clinton's term. They both addressed idealogically driven extremism, one that is primarily technology infused, whereas the other one is not so much. Sorry, I don't see the big left wing conspiracy with that. 

I agree that voter intimidation by anyone is just plain wrong; including the history of republican actions like that.

Oh fucking A, are you serious? Good grief, call the frigging hospital, eh? You know, in order to believe the whole mess behind that you have to have some serious inclinations towards paranoia or something. Come on, really? Just be honest: you, being naturally inclined to not be fond of Obama's administration, are more than likely to believe some trumped up rumor/assertion that his administration is going to secretely send out its secret police (where are they again?) to "set people straight."

>_> \sarcasm off

Hmm...

Closure of Gitmo? Agree with it.

Rights for detainee's? Agree with it (based of of the geneva and belief in certain basic human rights for everyone)

Apologizing for our mistakes and overbearing arrogance during Bush's term? Agree with it. 

Finally setting Israel aside for once? Agree with it.

Fudge on european allies? Mind expanding on that one, apparently I didn't read/hear about it. That or the way you said it...idk.

I'm willing to do the reasearch, but you made the assertions so you have to back them up, it's basic debate code.On the contrary, I feel that I've maintained the...ethics in the entire political bullshit that happens. I strongly believe that a lot of the shit out there (rumors, etc.), on both sides, are taken and spun so fast and so much...it's ridiculous.

So you would have people's private calls be monitored? Right, they're international calls right? No. Heh, no. Sorry, but I prefer my privacy. It's ironic though, that your support of such things is actually contrary to small government. Such allowances can allow justification and setup precedents for future government over steps. Who is to say that the government couldn't justify, through the war on terror, further similar actions? I understand that you believe such sacrifices are apparently necessary for our saftey, but I do not.

Thank you for making a point of mine that you've repeatedly ignored. Just as I know almost nothing about you, you know almost nothing about me. On the contrary, it didn't offend me because I understand and empathize with your point. I don't want to see any sort of vast government control, which is just as possible with "conservative" governments.  (Remember, many "small government" conservatives supported these invasive security measures and defensive tactics, like wire tapping, and the patriot act. (1st time around: 210 R reps, 49 R senators)) They don't sound like people who want the government to be small, and remain out of people's lives....not very conservative.

That's good to hear, because it shows me that you oppose such things on a matter of principle, not party. It's pathetic, but common, to see people oppose things when the other party is in power but support it when their party is in. I don't like that, because it's a double standard.

My bad, (dispite my comment being just that and not a debate) everything I posted was covered extensively on the pages of JU. Silly me for assuming you read them (even though you posted to many yourself). I'll be sure to put a link for the folks too lazy to click the next page at the bottom. Also, for someone crying for "proof" so much you rarely provide it yourself.

Please provide proof to your assertions. So much for your ethics.

Oh sorry I forgot your guy Obama is incapable of this!!

Funny how you call me paranoid over Obama's report your neighbor, and cry about the Patriot Act, which Obama has kept in place BTW. You do make these pages fun AJ.

Great, your left-wing liberal ID card is in the mail and should arrive soon (please turn in your "Libertarian" card (your claimed affiliation) as you espouse none of their core principles. Still waiting for you to admit that BS claim. Pride trumps truth I guess, but it sure hurts credibility.

BTW Al Quiada is not or never was a signer of the Geneva Convention, nobody is forcing them to fight. Having been to Gitmo, most US prisoners would kill (again and again) to get locked up there. These detainees are getting better than they ever give. I'm sure they appreciate your sympathy though, maybe they will save your infidel back side for last.

Again, you read and comprehend the part of my post that suits you. I said I was not crazy about the PA. Like most folks I am willing to make sacrifices for security. There was a time where I'm from where people left homes and cars unlocked (even keys in the visor). Those days are gone because people learned the hard way that some will exploit your convenience for their own gain.

I want the terrorists to get caught in their planning phase, not after the planes hit the buildings. Does it step on my conservative principles? Sure does, but the potential for worse things to happen are too great. That doesn't mean surrender to the government, we need to be vigilant.

The PA does not have people listening to your international calls. Software searches for key words that terrorist might use. Then if further monitoring is deemed necessary it is ordered. If you have something to say that is harmful to the security of this country, I can see your concern, but I have no sympathy for you in that case.

Just curious, many other nations monitor international (and domestic) phone calls without the notification or support of their citizens. Does that bother you? I thought the left want us to be like the rest of the world? Careful what you wish for.

On thing I do know about you (because I've seen it many times, not just responses to me) is that you often assume it's all about you and it's not. If I'm wrong, I ask someone besides yourself to say so.

If their is something I really want to know I'll ask. Sorry no burning questions at this time. That's not to say you can't learn by plain old reading, in fact nobody ever learned a thing by speaking or writing. Since I've spent more than half my life having to dissect what people say, their intentions, motives, and innuendos, I think I'm pretty fair at doing it, even though voice modulation and tone is not part of the JU environment.