this post was submitted on
180 points (62% like it)
449 up votes 269 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

top 200 commentsshow all 237

[–]faultydesign 118 points119 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You know America is deep in shit when you congratulate a president for upholding the constitution.

[–]sclark10 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He upholds freedom of religion, but then turns the other way about net neutrality.

[–]JuliusDL 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not expert, but I really don't think the internet is located in the constitution. Just saying.

[–]Plemer 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

First amendment. Clearly the framers couldn't have anticipated the Internet but a non-neutral net would certainly abridge freedom of speech and press.

[–]TheThirdBlackGuy 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Methinks you misunderstand what the Constitution is for. It is strictly concerned with the relationship of the federal government to to states, citizens, and people within the US. It most certainly does not tell companies how they can and cannot run their business. I'm not a fan of a non-neutral net, but using the Constitution incorrectly to make an argument is not much better.

[–]Plemer 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Congress shall make no law..." That's actually a very solid point, one I should've made and am glad you brought up. The original language of the Constitution does not place the activities between citizens and companies in its jurisdiction. Even beyond the original language of the Constitution, I am aware of no laws or decisions requiring isp's to be net neutral at all.

However...

The framers recognized that in order for a democracy to function national dialogue must not be restricted. Previously attempts to limit free speech/dissent had been by governments, so they addressed it in that way. Now we see that corporations have the ability to manipulate the information people are exposed to. So protecting free speech from this threat is I believe is within the spirit of the Constitution, and the best interest of our society, if not the actual language.

PS: There are three black guys on reddit now?

[–]TheThirdBlackGuy 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Of this I do agree.

[–]Cavemonster 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I tend to agree, but only because ISPs often have a near monopoly on a service that is vital for many to participate in the US economy.

I would hate to see the extension of free speech protection to all private commercial property. For instance, reddit should be allowed to remove spam posts and anything they like. Restaurant owners should have the right to refuse to host a KKK banquet in full regalia. It is only the near-monopoly and the broad importance of net access that makes this exception valid.

[–]Plemer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Agreed. If the choice was between regulation and perfect competition in telecommunications, I'd gladly choose the latter.

[–]stevetac 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think this argument would have more impact if the Internet had been started and nurtured by purely independent business. It wasn't. If Verizon wants to go off and start their own net, then fine. This one was started and encouraged by the government and the people, and I'm opposed to having giant corporations picking fruit off the now mature tree. So to speak.

[–]habitue 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not to say your point isn't valid, but I am wary of 1st amendment arguments that are "creative". For example, it's a common argument that large campaign contributions from corporations are protected by free speech. I am pretty sure this is stretching it. While I agree with net neutrality in principle, I'm not sure it's actually covered by the first amendment

[–]Plemer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It isn't, certainly not strictly anyway. The more important point is that free speech is an American value, necessary for the functioning of a democracy, which the framers recognized and is threatened when one of the primary mediums of information in our society has the capacity to abridge that expression.

[–]habitue 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

ok, I'll buy that

[–]Cavemonster 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The first amendment simply limits the laws that the government may make so they will not themselves limit the freedom of speech, press and religion. It does not obligate the government to take positive action to keep private interests from making limitation on those using their services.

This correction is made often, but I'll say it again. What is meant by the freedoms in the First Amendment are freedoms from government intervention. Private concerns have every legal right to limit speech occurring on their property. Reddit has every legal right to censor your post. ISP's have every right to provide or not provide whatever services they wish. When your speech occurs using someone else's service or property, it is only free to the degree they choose to allow it.

[–]Plemer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're right. See my response to "TheThirdBlackGuy".

[–]owlmanatt -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Apples to string theory.

[–]Plemer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Free speech and free press aren't related to the Internet?

[–]owlmanatt 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, they aren't. I don't really see why you would think the bill of rights is relevant; that only covers the relationship between the citizens and the government, not you and the company you decide to buy access from.

It might be a fairness problem that the FCC can regulate, but nothing about net neutrality is a first amendment issue.

[–]Plemer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're right that the Constitution doesn't cover the relationship and activities that take place between citizens and government. If you look elsewhere on this thread you'll see that I've replied to that point.

However I do still contend that freedom of speech and press are related to the Internet, just not due to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I really should have been more clear originally but perhaps you'll be satisfied with my other responses.

[–]sclark10 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm no expert either, but I think that what the government is trying to do is move towards taking away our freedom, starting with the freedom of speech. I feel like I can't send out emails because the possibility they would be checked for no reason.

[–]JuliusDL 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but simply saying "THE CONSTITUTION GIVES ME THE RIGHT TO FREE INTERNETS" doesn't really hold up.

[–]sclark10 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, but the constitution says that I had the right to free speech. That means at any time at any place.

[–]JuliusDL 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Regulating the internet isn't regulating speech, you still can speak however you wish. If they were to censor the internet as in regulating what you can say that would be against the constitution, regulating business isn't.

[–]sclark10 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But isn't that what they are doing? They want to read our personal emails and regulate how we are as people through the things we do and say.

[–]bamfb2 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Reminds me of that old Chris Rock riff:

A n---- will brag about some shit a normal man just does. A n---- will say some shit like, "I take care of my kids." You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker! What kind of ignorant shit is that? "I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!

Makes me laugh every time. Amazing how often the same principle comes up in real life too (not from a racial perspective, just in general)

[–]vagif 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

When everyone expects you to take care of kids, of course it is easy to say that you do.

But when the whole country expect its president take his whole family every week to church, supporting mosque at ground zero with middle name Hussein, secret Muslim past, Kenyan birth certificate, and black skin - does take courage.

[–]I_divided_by_0- 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Meanwhile in Guantanamo Bay....

[–]argleblarg -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is, or was. If this had happened while Bush was President, chances are he wouldn't have said a word about it - or if he had, he would have been guardedly neutral.

[–]adrianmonk 28 points29 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.

- George W. Bush, September 17, 2001

(Not that I think he did a good job of upholding the Constitution, but he did at least have the decency to differentiate between terrorists and Muslims.)

[–]argleblarg 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, fair enough.

[–]MrBensvik 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Too bad that difference has been obscured by the Right Wing propaganda..

[–]alphasquadron 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

http://i.imgur.com/k7vHo.jpg

He's not completely dumb.

[–]SpearNmagicHelmet 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I blame the Christians for not stopping 9/11.

[–]turnyouracslaterup 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Except he then backtracked and said he wasn't commenting specifically about this mosque but just the idea for building one:

“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” he said. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about. And I think it's very important as difficult as some of these issues are that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about."

So. Yeah. Not helpful, Obama.

[–]mhughes3500 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree. Watered down courage.

[–]dariusj18 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I disagree. It is not his responsibility/bailiwick to comment specifically. But, to establish a proper perspective for the country to look up to, that is helpful.

[–]pkm2232 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think he's just saying that, while it may not be his first choice in mosque location, they have every right to put it there.

[–]socialistme 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But he's giving unnecessary credence to the ravings of racists in the process. It's the most minimal defense possible.

[–]thekingslayer4747 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nate Silver of 538 counters that it may not have been that big of a political risk

But yeah, he made the right call on this one.

[–]tjarrett 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm expecting down votes... But this has been in the news for weeks. It would have been impressive two weeks ago, now it looks like he was waiting to see what the public thought.

I voted for the guy. O am disappointed in him. This isn't bad news just "so what" news.

[–]NIggasAlwaysHatin 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'd like to thank him for not ending the wars, guantanamo, or the patriot act. I would also like to thank him for increasing intrusive spying upon American citizens and for the assassination of 'undesirable' citizens without a trial.

Thank you, and GOD BLESS

[–]SpearNmagicHelmet 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'll thank him when he holds somebody accountable for illegal, unnecessary wars and torture.

[–]d00ley 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you, President Obama, for throwing a worthless bone to the masses.

[–]argleblarg 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I love that he publicly supported this, but at the same time, I can see it now..

"Look evry1! He rilly is a sekrit Muslem!!1"

[–]adrianmonk 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's one reason why it took courage.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I shouldn't have been able to read that at full speed.

[–]argleblarg 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's the power of top-down processing. :)

[–]terafunker -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is copy-pasting YouTube comments a form of plagiarism? Just wondering, since each one is an expression of a wholly unique spelling system and grammar.

[–]dwhee -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Dumb people misspell things.

[–]argleblarg 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Indeed!

[–]srtpg2 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

truth time: i don't think he cares that you wrote

[–]gcmorar21 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Fuck him. I'll thank him when he ends the iraq war and brings about all the transparency he promised. Yes, he upheld the constitution but that's his JOB.

[–]sharked 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I wan't Obama to come out and say "build whatever religious centers anywhere you want, but I'm going to tax the shit out you freeloaders."

[–]NotWorthIt 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wan't

ಠ_ಠ

[–]tau-lepton 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Spelling isn't part of the tea party platform.

[–]lolocoster 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Spelling is for morans

[–]adrianmonk 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I want Obama to continue to support tax-free status for all nonprofit organizations that follow the law, not to single out nonprofits for taxation because their cause is or isn't related to a belief in a god.

[–]roboroller -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I wan't Obama to continue to support tax-free status for all nonprofit organizations that follow the law

ftfy

Haven't you heard? There's an apostrophe in there now.

[–]TheLobotomizer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm pretty sure it is a violation of freedom of religion to only tax religious non-profits and leave non-religious ones alone.

[–]darwinlovesyou 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I love this post. Xenophobia and religious intolerance are disgusting and unfortunately rampant throughout our country.

Also, I'm horrified that people have to stoop to personal attacks in order to express their distaste for an authority figure, but I guess in the end it's okay since it completely discounts anything else they might say. Don't waste your time arguing with them; even if you're right, you'll still lose.

[–]tndal 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Read Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature".

It isn't "xenophobia and religious intolerance". It's human nature rearing its head, ugly or not. Even though I understand the logic and legality of allowing a mosque near the site, I viscerally, as a human being, do not want it there.

We are territorial primates: our emotions, which have evolved over eons, are not logical and do not adhere to logical rational principles of freedom and tolerance. Our minds are not merely "tabulae rasae": approximately half of our behavior is controlled by our genes. Much of that is social behavior. And there's a spot somewhere in that component that doesn't like the idea of the proposed mosque. It has something to do with a very serious past wrong committed by what I perceive of as another group of primates.

I think that every time Obama speaks in favor of the mosque, he pokes that component of our genetic makeup. [How the component reacts depends on what's already in a given person's brain: my reaction is negative; someone else's (e.g., a Muslim) reaction might be positive.] But in either case, that genetic component isn't listening to reason and it will never listen, but it has successfully evolved over generations, providing behaviors that have ensured survival (Obama's relevant idea's likely provide lesser guarantees of survival). Such "spots" can be social and political "third rails": Obama's behavior and the public's response are a demonstration.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Pinker is great and his works are worth studying. However, I feel like you're going too far here. We are predisposed to certain behaviors, yes, but we're not bound to those behaviors. We are predisposed to say, racism, yet a lot of people in society manage to not be racist.

[–]Vernana 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's funny you mention those things because in many Muslim countries religious intolerance and violent homophobia is de rigueur.

[–]sommelierks 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Which is a crying shame, but this is America. The point is that all people, of all religions be free to pursue their happiness. We are not a Christian nation, a Muslim nation, Buddhist nation, Jewish nation, etc. We are special because of that ideal. It is sad seeing people try to stop that mentality which is far more at the core of the founding ideals of this country than any 'Christian' beliefs.

[–]darwinlovesyou 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And this widely known fact relates how...?

[–]terafunker -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Really, which ones?

[–]strawww 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can I just point out how ridiculous some of the reCAPTCHAS are on the whitehouse website? Seriously

[–]turnyouracslaterup 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

All of reCAPTCHAs are now. They've run out of real words, it seems.

[–]Hakaanu 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Amen. You need to be on a rocking ship out at see to make the blotted squiggles resemble anything like words.

[–]iaacp 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, because he's going to read these.

[–]mhughes3500 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

ha

[–]expectingrain 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Its interesting- another "religion" was all over Ground Zero recruiting members and no one said boo about them.

[–]Element_22 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You could almost feel how ridiculous he felt it was that he had to go make this speech when he was doing it.

[–]mhughes3500 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He was like: "Am I in A... merica?"

[–]electblu 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is not something that the office of the President should be involved in AT ALL! This is a New York City issue and does not concern the Federal government in the least. The fact that President Obama commented on this just shows how little he understands the office he holds. I consider this an abuse of power.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Same thing with the whole Crowley/Gates episode and that silly, contrived and embarrassing Beer Summit.

[–]wolfgangcm 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Reddit, President Obama just showed a lot of courage in speaking out against public opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.

And, by promptly walking back his strongly-worded original statement, has followed what seems to be the Administration's policy of appearing to defend civil liberties while not actually taking anything like a substantial position.

[–]DReicht 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Are you kidding me? "Thanks for the press release. You can totally forget about the people you've killed."

[–]bib4tuna 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Of all the stupid bullshit diversions this is one of the worst. How about writing him telling him to fix all the other shit thats broken and stop cockstroking for a bunch of conservatards.

[–]lizard450 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sorry, but fuck him. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Him being correct on this issue does not in any way shape or form excuse him from his former attacks on the liberties of the American people and reneging on the promises he made during his campaign.

This isn't a numbers game either. A husband can make 100 promises to his wife. To take out the trash, to be home on time, to watch a movie, read a book, fix dinner ... etc. etc. Then there are really important promises like being faithful emotionally and sexually. If you break that big promise all the little promises don't make up for it.

Obama broke some big promises, and he will have to make some serious strides to earn any thanking from me.

[–]adrianmonk 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Protecting religious freedom is one of the important things. After all, you're concerned about "the liberties of the American people". Isn't religious liberty one of the important freedoms?

[–]numb3rb0y -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Quite honestly I think you're giving him more than a little too much credit if you're going to claim that by making a non-specific statement about the establishment clause he was "protecting religious freedom". By contrast, he's actually taken real, concrete action to attack other freedoms, as well as actively denied ceasing formerly initiated action to do the same. I hardly think it unreasonable to prioritise criticising the latter over praising the former.

[–]dawiz25 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Could you list specific examples instead of bs analogies?

[–]jstevewhite 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The thing that's most pissing me off is (and I voted for him) his absolute 180 turn on transparency and the WOT.

I'm also highly irritated by the packing of the DOJ with RIAA lawyers.

[–]thekingslayer4747 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Guantanamo, for one.

[–]UptownDonkey 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's a work in progress. There are under 150 detainees there now from the height of more than 800 under Bush. Trials are going forward to clear out the rest who can be charged. The President also signed an executive order to close the unofficial CIA detention centers in Europe which was just as bad if not worse than Guantanamo.

[–]thekingslayer4747 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nice, I didn't know he had actually closed the detention centers in Europe. That is indeed good news.

I am troubled by his failure to commit to trying KSM in civilian court (I don't think anything has happened since then).

I am concerned about his acceptance of Bush's state secret doctrine.

I am disturbed by his approach to warrantless wiretapping.

I am perturbed by his approach to detainee policy in Afghanistan.

I am appalled by his refusal to investigate any of the abuses that occurred under the Bush administration.

I am horrified by his willingness to assassinate US citizens.

And yes, I am still mortified by his imprisonment of those who are still held in guantanamo without charges.

As far as I am concerned, America's body politic has forgotten what the rule of law means. Things that were bad under GWB are still bad under Mr. Obama.

[–]DocTomoe 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, what did you expect? An executive order to free the detainees and free plane rides back to the respective home countries where some of them are as welcome as the bubonic plague, accepting the political fallout of "having let the terrorists free" and getting blamed for every inevitable future death of an american caused by a non-american muslim?

[–]thekingslayer4747 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He said he would close Guantanamo. He has not closed Guantanamo. Yes, I expected him to have some stones and counter Republican propaganda about releasing detainees.

[–]DocTomoe -5 points-4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hm, why risk this in a first term? Re-election time is 2012.

[–]thekingslayer4747 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would value a return to the rule of law over a reelection in 2012.

Further, I think that a decent communications effort could push back on the issue. Emphasize how Guantanamo and similar issues have created a recruiting bonanza for extremist groups. Emphasize the importance of habeas corpus and other rights to our constitutional traditions. Don't let the militant right dictate the talking points, for once.

Even if the tactic failed, some things are worth losing elections for, IMHO.

But I get where you are coming from.

[–]DocTomoe 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Additionally, he doesn't seem to do so bad with his promises: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[–]thekingslayer4747 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There are some pretty big ones in his broken promises; failure to get a public option, failure to allow importation of drugs from foreign countries, failure to implement tougher rules for against revolving door, failure to end no-bid govt contracts,negotiating health care deal in public to ensure special interests don't dominate the proceedings.

[–]UptownDonkey 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The President never promised a public option -- he promised health care reform. There wasn't even enough votes in the Democratic party for a public option. What could he do? His own party wasn't willing to sign on. Obviously no Republicans would cross over for a public option. The inability to do the impossible is not breaking a promise (especially if you never promised it in the first place)

[–]DocTomoe -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's time for a disclaimer: I happen to be a non-US-citizen with an interest in American domestic politics (majored in political studies).

You must be aware that it was unlikely Obama - or any other candidate - would be able to keep 100% of his promises. Why especially do you consider the broken promises so much more important than the ones he kept?

Also: Is it possible that your frustration with some of the topics blurs your perception on average performance?

[–]TheLobotomizer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Valid questions should not be downvoted.

[–]lizard450 -4 points-3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, I could.

[–]argleblarg 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Will you?

[–]jeopardydd 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

for starters...

he has claimed the power to imprison people for life with no charges

he has claimed the power to assassinate American citizens without due process

he intensified the secrecy weapons and immunity instruments abused by his predecessor

he found all new ways of denying habeas corpus.

he granted full-scale legal immunity to those who committed serious crimes in the last administration.

the links are in the Greewald article: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/10/gibbs/index.html

[–]thekingslayer4747 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well said, sir. Greenwald rocks!

[–]jeopardydd 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

no problem.

Here's the ACLU report about how bad Obama's been on these things:

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/147808

ACLU Report: Obama Enshrining Bush-Era Torture Policies

[–]lizard450 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Here is one for example. http://www.alternet.org/rights/147808/aclu_report%3A_obama_enshrining_bush-era_torture_policies

Attacks on the rights protected by the 1st, 4th, 5th amendments.

Gitmo is not closed.

Illegal wiretapping.

Fighting for attacks on the internet.

Oh and his health care bill isn't designed to improve our health care system, but rather it is designed to destroy it entirely so that the government can then push for another power grab. You may be brainwashed into believing that we need socialized medicine, but we really don't. We just need to get rid of some of the monopolies within the system and other regulations that inhibit innovation.

Feel free to jump to 1:20. People give him this as a "promised kept" but it is complete bull shit. He flat out LIED in order to get ahead in the democratic primary Also check out 4:35 where he adjusted the time table again! and will ultimately adjust his time table yet again. This was not a promise kept this was a strategical tactic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYTKj8pU5M

Oh, how about lobbyists? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhoh5IFe1AI&playnext=1&videos=Svy8Ii4eWUQ&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_fresh%2Bdiv-1r-9-HM

He used the SAME tactic with health care. He started off with single payer in the beginning then worked to be more moderate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=player_embedded#at=31

This is a disingenuous yet extremely effective manipulation tactic designed to get people from the far left emotionally hooked early on and dumping them a few months later.

When Rachel Maddow destroyed Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_0DhmBCtJ0&feature=related

How about this bold faced lie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUd-slJc-GY&feature=player_embedded a 3000% decrease in premiums? Stupid people believe this and it was important in passing his disingenuous bill.

[–]dwhee -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Was that necessary?

[–]darwinlovesyou 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why don't you write to him with this instead of anonymously bitching on the Internet? You're just as weak as you think he is.

[–]dwhee 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How do you know he hasn't?

[–]tau-lepton 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He hasn't.

[–]dwhee 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Probably not- it's a pretty stupid suggestion after all.

But how do you know?

[–]tau-lepton 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Faith

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]atomic_rabbit 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

70 percent of Americans are against, if I understand the latest polls correctly.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]Caudebac 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm against it, and I'm not racially intolerant. (Or white, male, and Christian, before you ask.) Most of the people I know aren't for it either.

It's sick if the people against it were against it for racial/religious reasons. I just think it's poor judgment.

[–]mhughes3500 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think that was just Texas... I hope.

[–]pkm2232 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

no such luck

[–]illbite[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Since when does twenty-nine percent mean "most Americans"? Like I said, nothing was ever going to stop the construction of the community center, but Obama could have stayed quiet like most of his party. He stood up for what's right when it wasn't the politically safe thing to do.

[–]hallohallo 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Don't tell me to thank the president for doing something that should be expected to begin with.

[–]terafunker 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's like congratulating little children for passing the fourth grade.

[–]rollem 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I disagree. When ~605 of the country is against the mosque, staying out of the issue or rehashing Palin's illiterate rants would be the expected path.

On the other hand, this is the path the SHOULD be expected, so I see where you're coming from, but to do the right thing when the wrong is typical seems praiseworthy to me.

[–]DevinWatson 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Clearly he is an Islamic Socialist Terrorist...

/sarcasam

[–]mhughes3500 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Total IST.

[–]I_luvtheCIA 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you for posting this link, I've written to him before using this site - and I always feel better after doing so.

We need to support our President against the insane, extremist rightwing.

[–]joerdie -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree with you. However, Brittney Spears said the same about Bush while chewing gum like a cow. Were you bashing Bush at the time? I know I was.

[–]I_luvtheCIA 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Britney Spears spoke out about the insane, extremist rightwing? How prescient of her.

[–]joerdie -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Maybe I should have been more clear. She made the same comment you did, only she was championing the right wing. Like I said, I'm on your side, just trying to be aware of my own, and others, opinions.

[–]momalle1 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sent mine, thanks for the link.

[–]misterbuckets 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Done. Thanks for the heads up.

[–]aureo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

At first, the official position was that this was a matter for local authorities. Why the change? Why release the news on a Friday afternoon, the typical time to release things you want to have buried by the news cycle?

[–]dariusj18 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is strange how when George W. Bush was President, foreigners would say, "We don't agree with your government but the American people are still alright." I am afraid that they are now saying, "Those Americans are crazy, but at least they have a sensible President."

[–]luclablanc 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.

[–]fani 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Time to correct the CNN poll which will be seen by millions.

[–]alchemeron 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm tired of praising people for doing the things they're supposed to do.

[–]njharman 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's nice but I don't generally thank people for doing their job.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I oppose the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque." But then I also oppose every religious structure -- mosque, cathedral, synagogue, or plain vanilla church. Why are you psychos wasting an entire building for your group delusion?

[–]iamrunningman 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I wrote him to tell him what an appeasing politically correct ass he is.

[–]socialistme 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Obama's defense of the mosque was late in coming and is actually minimalist, rather than staunch. He should have taken this stand earlier, and he should have done it more vociferously by calling those fear mongering against it on their bigotry. Instead he defended it in the most minimalist terms possible, going out of his way to say that he wasn't commenting on the "wisdom" of building a mosque near Ground Zero.

[–]skarface6 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Blah blah blah. He has no say- it's a city of New York decision. If he really upheld the Constitution, he would keep the federal government out of local decisions.

[–]HugeRedBear 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes it's so important to defend peoples right to worship who they want just not marry who they want. Thanks bigot.

[–]caseykasem200 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

All I have to say about President Obama is a little anecdote said by some musician or poet: The new boss is same as the old boss. Nothing ever changes.

[–]i_kant_spelz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

yeah, idk man, that's a lot of work.

can't i just, like, sign my name on your letter?

[–]anonid 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

how about ANOTHER edit to your post

Weighing his words carefully on a fiery political issue, US President Barack Obama said Saturday that Muslims have the right to build a mosque near New York's ground zero, but he did not say whether he believes it is a good idea to do so.

Asked Saturday about comments he made during his trip to Florida, Obama said: "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding."

[–]M_G 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For all the shit people give Obama on Reddit about not doing what they want or about the voters not being active in politics, they better fucking write him a thank you.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So now we have to congratulate the POTUS for defending the Constitution? What's next, giving trophies to the losers? Oh wait...

[–]Vernana 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you have to. Just like I have a right to build a Hitler museum next to a temple. I hope they enjoy they gay bar next door.

[–]ezekielziggy 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You should see the tweets Sarah Palin just posted (regarding the construction). She's doing the bat-shit-racist-right wing-loony-thing.

[–]smacfarl 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

staunchly defended

From who? Oh yeah. Right wing pundits and the Mega corps that print and broadcast them. How about having the courage to wield those US government advertising dollars to stop the problem at its source?

[–]skros 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What is the source?

[–]DocTomoe 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Rupert Murdoch. Well, he is one source

[–]smacfarl 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The comment made by the poster of this thread.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Most normal people don't give a shit about a mosque a few blocks away. How was telling the minority of Americans who care about such trivial things off a courageous act? We really need to send him a thank you letter for everytime he does something that a normal person would do? This is the kind of bullshit society we live in? It's like getting points in college for class participation and attendance, you're supposed to fucking go to class and participate.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why would I want to thank him? Religion is a mental illness, and Islam is one of the more pathological varieties of that.

Strangely, he has no problem defending the building of a mosque, but won't close Guantanamo or quit murdering Afghans and Iraqis. That's not courageous, that's just going with whatever is popular within his ingroup.

[–]bobtheplanet -5 points-4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would be much happier if he simply ignored all these petty religious problems, stopped entertaining religious leaders, stopped the two wars we are engaged in that have drained the economy, quit trying to spy on, torture, or assassinate civilians and citizens, provided a real commitment to border security, and stopped kowtowing to the corporate forces that are sucking the US dry.

But I'm from his home state and I know it'll never happen. He's a poster boy and he's paper thin.

[–]adrianmonk 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

if he simply ignored all these petty religious problems

This is not a religious problem. This is a freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution problem.

Specifically, it's a problem that so many people seem so keen to try to take away the freedoms of a minority (Muslims) because they're so busy basing things on fear and lumping all 1.5 billion adherents together.

This is a real problem, and it needs to be addressed.

[–]DocTomoe 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This.

There once was a religious minority in my home country that got its religious freedom stripped away ... and later their lifes. I'm sure you've heard of them.

You should try to handle your economic problems without resorting to genocide.

[–]bobtheplanet -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There is a substantial difference between the phrases "ignore them" and "put them in the ovens". If you don't understand this perhaps you should invest in a remedial English class.

[–]DocTomoe 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I shall do this - as soon as you've had your history classes. At first we were told to ignore them. Then came the yellow star ... and suddenly they started to vanish.

[–]bobtheplanet 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So, you admit to being a Nazi! Report to Nürnberg at once.

[–]DocTomoe 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I really don't follow your logic here.

[–]cowinabadplace 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Look at it this way. He's reaffirming that America is a free country. His saying that doesn't prevent him from doing all the rest of what you're saying. All that is independent of this, which is a good thing.

[–]mt_ski -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Build a mosque ON THE FUCKING twin towers site!

They CAN..but should they?

A little respect goes a long way, rubbing the dogs nose in shit does not make the dog respect you.

[–]illbite[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not on the site. Two blocks away. Why should they not?

[–]mt_ski 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No lets build it on the same site. They are free to do it...why not.

[–]xander787 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Look even if they did, why not? Just because they're muslim? So what? Isn't that inherently racist? Just because one irrational group did something stupid doesn't mean the entire culture is filled with terrorists? Every culture has a stereotype and it's not fair to hold that against anyone. Are you white? Should I call you a redneck? Or what if you're black or mexican? Should I call you the n-word or a wetback? No, of course not. So you shouldn't just judge an entire culture and write them all off as some extremist organization. People can't help what culture they are born into. You, however, can help being a mis-informed jackass.

[–]TheLobotomizer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The local Islamic community has as little to do with the 9/11 attackers as the any other religious organization in the country. Would you think it disrespectful if a church was built near the site?

What pisses me off the most is that people who share your opinion are basically grouping every American Muslim with the likes of terrorists. Seriously, fuck you.

[–]mhughes3500 -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I haven't heard one coherent argument for disallowing construct of said mosque. I thought conservatives got boners off property rights, so they should be defending the right of the landowner here. The Gingrichian argument that "they don't have churches in Saudi Arabia" is beyond stupid. That's the beauty of a secular government you twit and division of state and religion. One most admit that those who commingle state in religion have not fared well from Israel to Pakistan.

It is completely un-American and unpatriotic to be against this mosque. I really do not understand what the clatter is all about. From what I am hearing, i may be wrong, but the godforsaken thing (allahforsaken thing) is two bloody blocks away from this sacred ground zero - such a macabre tribute to those who perished (including Muslims - yes, there were Muslims in the Twin Towers that day).

All created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights and who the hell cares if other countries do not allow these same rights. For all of America's weaknesses one has to admit we are fairly free to say and do just about anything compared to any other country. Endowed by the "Creator" as they wrote - beautifully worded in deistic nondenominational terms referencing a "higher power" those brilliant founding fathers who actually turned against Christianity don't let Sean Hannitty tell ye otherwise. Thus, no christian nor jew nor muslim shall claim stake to the principles of this country. Which is a great country except for all the idjits that are against erecting this fucking mosque.

[–]ivquatch -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sheep.

[–]tau-lepton 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Mutton.

[–]ivquatch 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on