Obama is more like his Republican predecessor than the left seem to realise

cyberhog

Just like Bush, Obama is a power mad, narcissistic, egomaniac that thinks he has the right to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone he likes.

Some people may remember the Courts rebuked Bush for trying to trample the Constitution.

the Ninth Circuit judges reasoned, "We simply cannot accept the government’s position that the executive branch possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign citizens included . . . without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind to any judicial forum,"

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/12/19/courts-rebuke-bush-for-trampling-the-constitution/

So now Obama has tried to aquire the same power and once again the courts have ruled that indefinite detention of terrorism suspects is unconstitutional.

Judge Forrest said in her injunction that the legislation contained elements that had a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights” and ruled that no, the government cannot imprison Americans over suspected ties with terrorists.

"In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more,” said the judge.

http://www.care2.com/news/member/101960828/3386651

How any left-wing Democrat can associate themselves with a thug like Obama is beyond me.

al28283

cyberhog wrote: »

Just like Bush, Obama is a power mad, narcissistic, egomaniac that thinks he has the right to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone he likes.

Some people may remember the Courts rebuked Bush for trying to trample the Constitution.



http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/12/19/courts-rebuke-bush-for-trampling-the-constitution/

So now Obama has tried to aquire the same power and once again the courts have ruled that indefinite detention of terrorism suspects is unconstitutional.



http://www.care2.com/news/member/101960828/3386651

How any left-wing Democrat can associate themselves with a thug like Obama is beyond me.

As you said, Bush tried it too, can you understand how any right-wing republican could associate with a thug like him?
Funny how Bush tried the same stuff but nobody ever referred to him as a thug.:rolleyes:

The left tries it, the right tries it. and pretty much every leader throughout history has tried it.
The entire reason for having more than one branch of government is to stop the consolidation of power, and your post proved it worked. YAY!
The Romans got some things right

So is your issue with the individual or the system?

cyberhog

al28283 wrote: »

Funny how Bush tried the same stuff but nobody ever referred to him as a thug.:rolleyes:

Bush Is "Biggest Thug" Ever To Occupy White House, Historian Parenti Says

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_sherwood_080327_bush_is__22biggest_thu.htm

c_man

cyberhog wrote: »

Just like Bush, Obama is a power mad, narcissistic, egomaniac that thinks he has the right to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone he likes.

Not sure Bush went as far as Obama though e.g. extrajudicial assassination of US citizens.

al28283

cyberhog wrote: »

Bush Is "Biggest Thug" Ever To Occupy White House, Historian Parenti Says

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_sherwood_080327_bush_is__22biggest_thu.htm

that's good to see, how about an answer to the question though?

Fromthetrees

cyberhog wrote: »

Just like Bush, Obama is a power mad, narcissistic, egomaniac that thinks he has the right to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone he likes.

Some people may remember the Courts rebuked Bush for trying to trample the Constitution.



http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/12/19/courts-rebuke-bush-for-trampling-the-constitution/

So now Obama has tried to aquire the same power and once again the courts have ruled that indefinite detention of terrorism suspects is unconstitutional.



http://www.care2.com/news/member/101960828/3386651

How any left-wing Democrat can associate themselves with a thug like Obama is beyond me.

By definition wouldn't anyone that becomes President of the most powerful country on earth pretty much have to be 'a power mad, narcissistic, egomaniac', other personality types will just never be the President.

American politics is just a bit mad whoever is in power.

He's won a Nobel Peace Prize but has now unilaterally attacked more countries than Bush, notably bombing inside Pakistan, Yemen and now Libya without Congressional approval.


Noam Chomsky said that,

'If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg. And Nuremberg means Nuremberg and Tokyo.'

FISMA

Ya gotta love Obama. He said he would close Gitmo, now he is giving them cable TV.

Maybe they can make a reality show called Gitmo-licious! Or the Cuban Shore!

troposphere

Fromthetrees wrote: »

He's won a Nobel Peace Prize but has now unilaterally attacked more countries than Bush, notably bombing inside Pakistan, Yemen and now Libya without Congressional approval.

Bush also conducted airstrikes in Pakistan and Yemen and also Somalia.

FISMA wrote: »

Ya gotta love Obama. He said he would close Gitmo, now he is giving them cable TV.

If I remember correctly when Obama first came to office and wanted to transfer prisoners to mainland USA there was a group of prisoners that wanted to remain in Gitmo because they thought it was better conditions than regular US prison.

Fromthetrees

troposphere wrote: »

Bush also conducted airstrikes in Pakistan and Yemen and also Somalia.

Yeah but the OP is comparing Bush with Obama. I was comparing their war record, so here,

Obama- Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya.

Bush- Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen.

When it comes to things like aggressive foreign policy the only difference that appears between Obama and Bush/McCain is rhetoric.

At least in the last election campaign McCain said something along the lines of we'll stay in Iraq for 100 years if needs be,

whereas,

Obama said,
'I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr9ywEFRQkQ

20Cent

Its more like the right who have gotten Obama wrong, he's not the "radical" "socialist" they make him out to be he's to the right of Reagan. If war is the main issue I'd still vote for Obama since Romney is much more likely to start one with Iran. Despite being a big disappointment a republican president would be much worse for the world and the deficit.

Amerika

Luckily the media and the Left (with impunity and without conscience) are able to hold B Obama under an entirely different set of values and standards than they did GW bush, eh? (Gitmo, drones, leaks, unemployment, gas prices, executive orders, fundraising, lobbyists, travel, gaffes, etc, etc).

And funny how under Bush, disagreeing with his direction and policies was considered just to be people disagreeing with the direction of the country... but under Obama the same disagreements cause you to be considered a racist.

The media has only themselves to blame that only 43 percent of Americans (mostly democrats I presume) put any stock in the mainstream media's ability to report news honestly and fairly.

Overheal

43 percent?

Is it really that high? More people believe in Creationism.

Matt Holck

He's won a Nobel Peace Prize but has now unilaterally attacked more countries than Bush, notably bombing inside Pakistan, Yemen and now Libya without Congressional approval.

congress can choose to disapprove

poeticseraphim

The left are unhappy with Obama.

What is funny is why the right are unhappy with him...he is not socialist enough...it's like they are dissapointed that he does not go far enough to correct the mess they made.

PLEASE give us free healthcare ....we cant commit to it as a policy ...but please...

PLEASE pull out of Iraq..we can't ...but you can


PLEASE save the economy..we dont believe in intervention ..but you can

Every criticism from the right is a type of self hatred.

Yes Obama is not socialist enough......

And to be honest it was the assumption that he was that radical and not just another politician that was perhaps a racist assumption of the right.

poeticseraphim

Amerika wrote: »

Luckily the media and the Left (with impunity and without conscience) are able to hold B Obama under an entirely different set of values and standards than they did GW bush, eh? (Gitmo, drones, leaks, unemployment, gas prices, executive orders, fundraising, lobbyists, travel, gaffes, etc, etc).

And funny how under Bush, disagreeing with his direction and policies was considered just to be people disagreeing with the direction of the country... but under Obama the same disagreements cause you to be considered a racist.

The media has only themselves to blame that only 43 percent of Americans (mostly democrats I presume) put any stock in the mainstream media's ability to report news honestly and fairly.

Was it the mainstream media that reported that number??? :-D





Seriously the mainstream media enjoys whipping up a frenzy of radical opposition on BOTH sides and makes it seems Americans are at each others throats .....its ridiculous...

Amerika

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Was it the mainstream media that reported that number??? :-D

Last I heard, Gallup polling is not part of the mainstream media. :-D

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/Distrust-Media-Edges-Record-High.aspx

Jonny7

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Yeah but the OP is comparing Bush with Obama. I was comparing their war record, so here,

Obama- Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya.

Bush- Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen.

jesus..

Obama inherited Afghanistan and Iraq from the previous administration. It would have been highly irresponsible and dangerous just to immediately pull out of either situation, of course, in an act of perfect selfishness he could have done so.

Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen are not wars.

Libya was international action, backed by just about everyone.

FISMA

Jonny7 wrote: »

Obama inherited Afghanistan and Iraq from the previous administration. It would have been highly irresponsible and dangerous just to immediately pull out of either situation, of course, in an act of perfect selfishness he could have done so.

Then maybe he shouldn't promise people that ending the war is the first thing he'll do as President.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g

Also, I wouldn't rule out action against Iran just yet.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen are not wars.

Libya was international action, backed by just about everyone.

If you want to be technical, North Korea wasn't a war either, but a police action. Same goes for the Gulf War. But if you ask someone that was there, they'll damn well tell you that it didn't matter much what it was called when that first bullet flew by.

Jonny7

FISMA wrote: »

Then maybe he shouldn't promise people that ending the war is the first thing he'll do as President.

He also promised to end Gitmo, but the realities of office have proved different - same as every living politician throughout history. I am firmly against Gitmo both physically and fundamentally, however I do understand what can and can't be done under timeframes, political atmophere, contraints, etc.

If you want to be technical, North Korea wasn't a war either, but a police action. Same goes for the Gulf War. But if you ask someone that was there, they'll damn well tell you that it didn't matter much what it was called when that first bullet flew by.

North Korea, Gulf War - different administrations, nothing to do with Obama.

Overheal

Every president to date has made a host of campaign promises they have little hope of accomplishing because these are things which are out of their scope to control with any absolution. Closing gitmo would have been a relatively simple affair except that congress ran a NIMBY with the idea of bringing our political prisoners to the US and 'wtf are they thinking' trying to give them trials in NYC and all that good stuff.

Amerika

Hmmm... And now with president Obama’s claim of executive privilege regarding Fast and Furious… perhaps he’s more like another former US president.

"Until now, everyone believed that the decisions regarding ‘Fast and Furious’ were confined to the Department of Justice," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement.

"The White House decision to invoke executive privilege implies that White House officials were either involved in the ‘Fast and Furious’ operation or the cover-up that followed. The Administration has always insisted that wasn't the case. Were they lying, or are they now bending the law to hide the truth?” Buck said.”

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/boehner-accuses-white-house-of-fast-and-furious-coverup-126759.html

troposphere

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... And now with president Obama’s claim of executive privilege regarding Fast and Furious… perhaps he’s more like another former US president.


http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/boehner-accuses-white-house-of-fast-and-furious-coverup-126759.html

Perhaps he is just like most modern Presidents?

Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege

President Bill Clinton: 14
President George W. Bush: 6
President Richard Nixon: 6
President Ronald Reagan: 3
President John F. Kennedy: 2
President Gerald R. Ford: 1
President James E. Carter: 1
President George H.W. Bush: 1
President Barack Obama: 1

Amerika

troposphere wrote: »

Perhaps he is just like most modern Presidents?

Nice spin

But here is the problem. Two US agents were killed because of "Fast and Furious." Congress rightfully should investigate the matter. Additionally, government whistleblowers reported that the ATF was using “Fast and furious" to argue for new rules about gun sales to circumvent the 2nd Amendment. If true, congress also needs to get to the bottom of this also. President Obama rightfully can claim Executive Privilege in the matter only for information involved in the White House offices. The President can redact any advice given to the Justice Department, but he cannot claim the privilege for any communications inside the Justice Department and also with field offices. If true and a cover-up is in play, we need to know!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

Then there is this matter. So was it just rhetoric to get elected? Did we just get a Chicago politician as POTUS, instead of the transformative president we were promised and we elected?

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIM_K.NPyHUAuDD7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBrc3VyamVwBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQD?p=obama+executive+privilege+2007&vid=3EB4772AC03835BF5A4F3EB4772AC03835BF5A4F&l=00%3A30&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fvideos%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D2299185791050%26id%3D4d873a2d041f98348ac50a176efec1b3%26bid%3DT1q%252fNTjAKne0Pg%26bn%3DThumb%26url%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.youtube.com%252fwatch%253fv%253dmEU3S0V0oDI&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmEU3S0V0oDI&tit=Obama+In+2007%3A+He+Would+Respect+The+Law+And+Branches+Of+Gov%26%2339%3Bt%2C+Not+...&c=1&sigr=11aq5cvlq&&

(not so "Conspiracy Theory" stuff now... is it Mods?)

Overheal

2 agents. And how many US Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Don't get me wrong I want it investigated much as the next guy but the sympathy card for 2 dead agents really doesn't fly with me. We get people killed all the time because of our political and operational cock-ups.

Amerika

Overheal... what were your feelings back when the Valerie Plame issue was in the news?

cristoir

troposphere wrote: »

Perhaps he is just like most modern Presidents?

Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege

President Bill Clinton: 14
President George W. Bush: 6
President Richard Nixon: 6
President Ronald Reagan: 3
President John F. Kennedy: 2
President Gerald R. Ford: 1
President James E. Carter: 1
President George H.W. Bush: 1
President Barack Obama: 1

Get out of here you, with your facts! Some of us are trying be outraged.

I have heard a few comparisons online to how Obama's use of Executive Privilege is proof we are going to get Watergate mark 2. People need to cool the jets about this. Use of privilege is nothing new and should we end up with President Romney in January I'd bet he will use it too.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Overheal... what were your feelings back when the Valerie Plame issue was in the news?

Only from googling the name just now, or I'd be completely lost. Therefore I have no feelings on the matter since I wasn't politically involved back when I was a pimply faced teenager who had other things going on. And I lived out of country, so, yeah.

FISMA

Overheal wrote: »

Every president to date has made a host of campaign promises they have little hope of accomplishing because...

Of course we are used to the rhetoric of politics. We all remember how "Read my lips" went for George Bush senior.

However, I am not sure I remember many Presidents actually "promising" to do something, that was within the realm of a pen stroke and then backing off.

Obama, given his political savvy and being a lawyer is rarely at a loss for words: he should choose them more carefully.

Fair enough, Gitmo is a political hot potato. However, what he did to the unions in Wisconsin is inexcusable. He couldn't make an appearance in that State?

Scott Walker removes most of the collective bargaining for unions. Obama says...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o

"And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner."
Barack Obama, during 2007 campaign.

I guess he couldn't find a comfortable pair of shoes!:D

FISMA

cristoir wrote: »

Use of privilege is nothing new and should we end up with President Romney in January I'd bet he will use it too.

How many people have died as a result of previous usages of the privilege?

Estimates put Mexican deaths at 200 and of course one American Federal Agent.

1765 guns sold to suspected smugglers? 195 guns linked to some form of crime. Half of the guns unaccounted for.

Unbelievable that people are willing to give him a pass on this.

troposphere

But remember it is the people that do the killing, not the gun. Maybe that only applies when it is some nutcase who goes on a rampage in the US? The whole letting guns walk across the border didn't even start under Obama

Emails obtained by The Associated Press show how in a 2007 investigation in Phoenix, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — depending on Mexican authorities to follow up — let guns "walk" across the border in an effort to identify higher-ups in gun networks. Justice Department policy has long required that illicit arms shipments be intercepted whenever possible.

The 2007 probe operated out of the same ATF office that more recently ran the flawed Operation Fast and Furious. Both probes resulted in weapons disappearing across the border into Mexico, according to the emails. The 2007 probe was relatively small — involving over 200 weapons, just a dozen of which ended up in Mexico as a result of gun-walking. Fast and Furious involved over 2,000 weapons, some 1,400 of which have not been recovered and an unknown number of which wound up in Mexico.

Earlier this month, it was disclosed that the gun-walking tactic didn't begin under Obama, but was also used in 2006 under his predecessor, George W. Bush. The probe, Operation Wide Receiver, was carried out by ATF's Tucson, Ariz., office and resulted in hundreds of guns being transferred to suspected arms traffickers.

Continued

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Nice spin

But here is the problem. Two US agents were killed because of "Fast and Furious." Congress rightfully should investigate the matter. Additionally, government whistleblowers reported that the ATF was using “Fast and furious" to argue for new rules about gun sales to circumvent the 2nd Amendment. If true, congress also needs to get to the bottom of this also. President Obama rightfully can claim Executive Privilege in the matter only for information involved in the White House offices. The President can redact any advice given to the Justice Department, but he cannot claim the privilege for any communications inside the Justice Department and also with field offices. If true and a cover-up is in play, we need to know!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

Then there is this matter. So was it just rhetoric to get elected? Did we just get a Chicago politician as POTUS, instead of the transformative president we were promised and we elected?

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIM_K.NPyHUAuDD7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBrc3VyamVwBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQD?p=obama+executive+privilege+2007&vid=3EB4772AC03835BF5A4F3EB4772AC03835BF5A4F&l=00%3A30&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fvideos%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D2299185791050%26id%3D4d873a2d041f98348ac50a176efec1b3%26bid%3DT1q%252fNTjAKne0Pg%26bn%3DThumb%26url%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.youtube.com%252fwatch%253fv%253dmEU3S0V0oDI&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmEU3S0V0oDI&tit=Obama+In+2007%3A+He+Would+Respect+The+Law+And+Branches+Of+Gov%26%2339%3Bt%2C+Not+...&c=1&sigr=11aq5cvlq&&

(not so "Conspiracy Theory" stuff now... is it Mods?)

As a matter of interest, what do you think about all of the guns that are bought legally every day and sold across the border? Forget the ones involved here, what about the thousands of other fire arms that are sold in a largely unregulated manner? Guns that are used to kill Mexican citizens, who's lives are every bit as valuable.

Back on topic: Obama is not going to come and take your guns away.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

As a matter of interest, what do you think about all of the guns that are bought legally every day and sold across the border? Forget the ones involved here, what about the thousands of other fire arms that are sold in a largely unregulated manner? Guns that are used to kill Mexican citizens, who's lives are every bit as valuable.

I don't like guns getting into Mexico from the US, and I certainly don't like the fact that those that do would be used in crimes to kill any human being.

But do you believe the majority of guns used in Mexican crimes come from the US? If so, that is a fallacy. Only 17% of guns found at Mexican crime scenes or recovered in Mexico are traced back to the U.S. Only 17% of guns found at Mexican crimes scenes have been traced to the US (and I wonder how much of that percentage can be attributed to Fast and Furious). The vast majority of guns smuggled into Mexico come from Russia, China, and South America.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/

And I think tighter boarder security is the correct method to combat the small amount of guns that are currently getting into Mexico from the US by illegal means. And Mexico needs to secure their own boarders from the vast amount of illegal guns getting into their country by the countries I listed above.

Back on topic: Obama is not going to come and take your guns away.

Perhaps not, but he might be able to make regulations so harsh and ammunition so costly prohibitive that one can't afford to own and use guns.

Amerika

troposphere wrote: »

The whole letting guns walk across the border didn't even start under Obama

Under George W Bush, Operation Wide Receiver was employed and involved "controlled delivery," not "gun-walking ." (Fast and Furious started under the Obama administration in 2009).
　
Controlled Delivery:

Basically, the agents know the bad guys have negotiated a deal to acquire some commodity that is either illegal itself (e.g., heroin, child porn) or illegal for them to have/use (e.g., guns, corporate secrets). The agents allow the transfer to happen under circumstances where they are in control — i.e., they are on the scene conducting surveillance of the transfer, and sometimes even participating undercover in the transfer. As soon as the transfer takes place, they can descend on the suspects, make arrests, and seize the commodity in question — all of which makes for powerful evidence of guilt.

Where not the Mexican government advised and involed with the US, and the vast majority of guns and buyers arrested before they got across the border with Bush's "Operation Wide Receiver?" Now under president Obama, operations Fast and Furious involved uncontrolled deliveries!
　
http://www.examiner.com/article/rep-sheila-jackson-lee-blames-fast-and-furious-on-george-w-bush

troposphere

The "controlled delivery" description sounds much different to this

In March 2006 he signed a contract making him a confidential informant, with the promise that he would be paid unspecified rewards for helping to shut down a weapons pipeline to Mexico. “I thought I was doing something good,” says Detty, 52, a tall man who favors a basic firing-range wardrobe: solid-colored shirt, khaki trousers, and tan, high-laced combat boots. Beyond any rewards, he would also make a profit—in the form of his take from the undercover sales.

Over the next 19 months, Detty sold a series of suspected traffickers some 450 rifles and handguns—AR-15s, knockoff AK-47s, Colt .38s—all under the aegis of the ATF investigation. Hundreds of hours of conversations were taped. The guns were tracked, court filings show, and U.S. agents had fleeting contacts with Mexican police. But the investigation did not achieve its ambitious goals. The vast majority of the guns were never recovered by U.S. authorities. No kingpins were apprehended, no cartel taken down. Mexico’s drug war raged on.

Detty now accuses the ATF of misleading him about whether the guns he sold would be recovered. He also complains that the government shortchanged him on reward money. The Justice Dept. has admitted in federal court filings in Tucson that at least two of its prosecutors in Arizona had in 2007 and 2008 questioned the wisdom of ATF’s work with Detty, which was part of an investigation called Operation Wide Receiver. But no one tried to stop it.

Detty heard a different story from one of the prosecutors in that office. The prosecutor, whom Detty also met at a gun show, said the case had gotten bottled up because the ATF had not been fully candid about failing to intercept most of the weapons Detty sold during Wide Receiver. Prosecutors hesitated to admit to a jury that the government had allowed hundreds of weapons to be smuggled across the border and now couldn’t get them back.

In mid-2009, the Justice Dept. in Washington dispatched Laura Gwinn, a member of the Criminal Div,’s Organized Crime and Gang Section, to sort out the mess. In a court filing in Tuscon in October 2011, Gwinn acknowledged that the case had passed through the hands of two assistant U.S. attorneys in Arizona. Both had misgivings about the ATF agents’ “failure to interdict guns that ultimately were transported into Mexico.”

[link]

Manic Moran

briankeating wrote: »

As a matter of interest, what do you think about all of the guns that are bought legally every day and sold across the border? Forget the ones involved here, what about the thousands of other fire arms that are sold in a largely unregulated manner? Guns that are used to kill Mexican citizens, who's lives are every bit as valuable.
.

I'm inclined to support Amerika on this one. The number of 'straw purchase' firearms which cross the border from North to South is rather small, and in the larger scheme of cartel weaponry, fairly insignificant.

FISMA

briankeating wrote: »

As a matter of interest, what do you think about all of the guns that are bought legally every day and sold across the border? Forget the ones involved here, what about the thousands of other fire arms that are sold in a largely unregulated manner? Guns that are used to kill Mexican citizens, who's lives are every bit as valuable.

Source?

You've bought into the Rhetoric.

Not even Obama, Clinton or Holder repeat such.

Brian?

FISMA wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

As a matter of interest, what do you think about all of the guns that are bought legally every day and sold across the border? Forget the ones involved here, what about the thousands of other fire arms that are sold in a largely unregulated manner? Guns that are used to kill Mexican citizens, who's lives are every bit as valuable.

Source?

You've bought into the Rhetoric.

Not even Obama, Clinton or Holder repeat such.

Source for what?

What rhetoric? I don't do rhetoric.

UDP

Amerika wrote: »

Two US agents were killed because of "Fast and Furious."

Were they? My understanding is that one agent was killed with a gun that was part of the fast and furious program. Those that killed the agent would have just used different guns instead so I fail to see how he was killed because of fast and furious.

Amerika

UDP wrote: »

Were they? My understanding is that one agent was killed with a gun that was part of the fast and furious program. Those that killed the agent would have just used different guns instead so I fail to see how he was killed because of fast and furious.

The fact is Brian Terry was killed by a gun allowed to walk from the Fast and Furious program. It is only conjecture that he would have been killed by some other gun.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I don't like guns getting into Mexico from the US, and I certainly don't like the fact that those that do would be used in crimes to kill any human being.

But do you believe the majority of guns used in Mexican crimes come from the US? If so, that is a fallacy. Only 17% of guns found at Mexican crime scenes or recovered in Mexico are traced back to the U.S. Only 17% of guns found at Mexican crimes scenes have been traced to the US (and I wonder how much of that percentage can be attributed to Fast and Furious). The vast majority of guns smuggled into Mexico come from Russia, China, and South America.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/

90% of the guns the Mexican government asked the ATF to trace were bought in America. That is one statistic. That number of guns only actually totals 17% of the total guns seized by the Mexican government.

Give these statistics quoting figures of 90% or 17% are both baseless. The answer is clearly somewhere between those 2 figures. The only way to get a definitive answer is for every gun seized in Mexico to be tracked back to it's source, which is impossible.

The simple fact is that thousands of guns get across the border from the US to Mexico. Something needs to be done about this: tighter gun laws and better enforcement.

And I think tighter boarder security is the correct method to combat the small amount of guns that are currently getting into Mexico from the US by illegal means. And Mexico needs to secure their own boarders from the vast amount of illegal guns getting into their country by the countries I listed above.

You're partially right. A better controlled border would be helpful. But then so would a law that prohibits me from buying an glock on backpage:

http://phoenix.backpage.com/SportsEquipForSale/400-glock-23/18236990

Perhaps not, but he might be able to make regulations so harsh and ammunition so costly prohibitive that one can't afford to own and use guns.

No he won't. He has yet to sponsor a single piece of legislation on guns. ZERO. That's right, in 4 years he has touched gun laws.

Give that you fully expect a GOP house and senate soon, you don't need to worry anyway. Do you?

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

90% of the guns the Mexican government asked the ATF to trace were bought in America. That is one statistic.

I’ll trust the 17% figure, thanks. And I wish we could determine how much of that 17% figure could be attributed to the “Fast and Furious” gun walking operation. The 90% number you noted is meaningless for the most part, as noted from the article I linked... the majority of guns recovered in Mexico are not sent for tracing back to the US because they are obviously not guns coming from the US:

"But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S."

No he won't. He has yet to sponsor a single piece of legislation on guns. ZERO. That's right, in 4 years he has touched gun laws.

It seems Obama doesn’t sponsor much of any legislation. He leaves that type of work to his troops. But he is good at giving executive orders. Obama, ignoring his campaign rhetoric, clearly (well to me anyway) doesn’t like the 2nd amendment. Do you know he proposed legislation to ban gun stores within five miles of schools and parks. That’s pretty much all of populated America except for the far reaches of the hinterlands. He also once told the Pittsburgh Tribune "I am not in favor of concealed weapons."

Also with a reelection of Obama I predict we will be hearing much more talk of Ammunition Accountability Acts, as he won't have to worry about getting elected again.

Give that you fully expect a GOP house and senate soon, you don't need to worry anyway. Do you?

From your mouth to God’s ears my friend.

plasmaguy

In some respects Obama has been a good president but I think he won't be re-elected.

He's been weak on foreign power, he had no policy on Libya until forced into it, he's been weak on Syria, he's just weak on foreign policy in general.

As for the economy, while he stopped a recession becoming another Great Depression, at the same time he's made no real attempt to cut the annual deficit, just let it spiral out of control.

I think he's more like Jimmy Carter than any other president and probably destined to be a one term president.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I’ll trust the 17% figure, thanks. And I wish we could determine how much of that 17% figure could be attributed to the “Fast and Furious” gun walking operation. The 90% number you noted is meaningless for the most part, as noted from the article I linked... the majority of guns recovered in Mexico are not sent for tracing back to the US because they are obviously not guns coming from the US:

You'll trust that 17% figure because it helps make your point and suits your world view, there is no other reason to trust it. As I said the real figure is somewhere between the hyperbole.

Either way you cut it, that's still THOUSANDS of guns sourced in the US and used in crime. You failed to address my point about the ease of purchasing guns in the southern states, so I take it you cede the point that tighter gun control is needed?

"But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S."

Agreed, a large percentage. Not all. That's why your 17% figure is not accurate.

It seems Obama doesn’t sponsor much of any legislation. He leaves that type of work to his troops. But he is good at giving executive orders. Obama, ignoring his campaign rhetoric, clearly (well to me anyway) doesn’t like the 2nd amendment. Do you know he proposed legislation to ban gun stores within five miles of schools and parks. That’s pretty much all of populated America except for the far reaches of the hinterlands. He also once told the Pittsburgh Tribune "I am not in favor of concealed weapons."

As POTUS he never sponsered any legislation relating to guns. That is a fact. He had 4 years to do so and didn't, I am quite disapointed about it to be honest. Ergo he has not been an anti-gun president, no matter what his personal beliefs on guns are. Why does it hurt so much to admit that?

As for not liking the 2nd amendmant, what does any of this have to do with it? The 2nd amendmant states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

How can we have a well regulated militia without gun regulations?

Also with a reelection of Obama I predict we will be hearing much more talk of Ammunition Accountability Acts, as he won't have to worry about getting elected again.

Pure conjecture. You're shooting the man down for things you think he's going to do rather than judging him on his actions.

From your mouth to God’s ears my friend.

Do we want to debate the existance of god now as well? .

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Do we want to debate the existance of god now as well? .

Nah… that’s for another forum, and one arch-nemesis, in one forum at a time, is fun enough.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

The fact is Brian Terry was killed by a gun allowed to walk from the Fast and Furious program. It is only conjecture that he would have been killed by some other gun.

Really?

Is there any wound ballistics report or finding that he was actually killed w/one of the guns found there from F&F?

Amerika

Mjollnir wrote: »

Really?

Is there any wound ballistics report or finding that he was actually killed w/one of the guns found there from F&F?

Hmmm... Do you think differently... got any inside information you want to share?

A copy of the FBI report obtained by The Times' Washington bureau shows ballistics tests did not rule out the Fast and Furious guns.

Experts went to work on tests on Dec. 17, three days after Terry was killed, FBI records show. On Dec. 23, the FBI's "Report of Examination" said the fatal bullet came from a semiautomatic rifle, but that "due to a lack of sufficient agreement in the individual microscopic marks of value" on the weapons, "it could not be determined" which gun fired it.

A source briefed on the FBI's findings said the bullet that killed Terry was badly damaged "and that's why the FBI only got a partial match to the weapons. It was just too badly fragmented.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/27/nation/la-na-fast-furious-fbi-20110727

Then there is still the question about the a third gun linked to Fast and Furious that was found at the murder scene… supposedly an SKS.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/09/exclusive-third-gun-linked-to-fast-and-furious-identified-at-border-agents/

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... Do you think differently... got any inside information you want to share?


http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/27/nation/la-na-fast-furious-fbi-20110727

Then there is still the question about the a third gun linked to Fast and Furious that was found at the murder scene… supposedly an SKS.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/09/exclusive-third-gun-linked-to-fast-and-furious-identified-at-border-agents/

LOL. So the fact is that "The fact is Brian Terry was killed by a gun allowed to walk from the Fast and Furious program." is not actually the fact.

Thanks for clearing that up.

James Cessna

cyberhog wrote: »

Just like Bush, Obama is a power mad, narcissistic, egomaniac that thinks he has the right to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone he likes.

Some people may remember the Courts rebuked Bush for trying to trample the Constitution.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/12/19/courts-rebuke-bush-for-trampling-the-constitution/

So now Obama has tried to aquire the same power and once again the courts have ruled that indefinite detention of terrorism suspects is unconstitutional.
.
http://www.care2.com/news/member/101960828/3386651

How any left-wing Democrat can associate themselves with a thug like Obama is beyond me.

Here are two liberal elitist. After three years, they have become quite identical in their policies and their differences have become very minor! They ignore Congress when it comes to their war policies and they both think they can spend their way back into national economic prosperity. Obama, like Bush, has increased the power of the NSA, he has broadened the scope of warrantless wiretapping of Americans and both have done nothing to scale back and limit the abuses of the Patriot Act. Obama is clearly the greatest authoritarian and one of the phoniest and most insincere presidents we have ever had.