So then the rule of law, the single most fundamental precept in the founding of our nation, that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men, laws all Americans are subject to is just "PC values"?
Americans who understand and appreciate what makes America America, the laws established in its Consitution, are concerned with protecting America from power hungry politicians who want to use the War on Terror as an excuse to break the law and strip people of their rights.
Obama has been terrible in his handling of terrorism, because he's still illegally asserting the right to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial based on suspicion alone, illegally asserting the right to assassinate an American citizen like al-Waliki based on his dictatorial decree alone and revoking the right to charge or trial and skipping right on to the death penalty, using predator drones to attack and kill hundreds of civilians in Pakistan, a country we have no authority to invade or attack and are not at war with, etc.
However, he has not been "soft" on terror and that's far from the problem. The attempted but failed underwear bombing was an attempted terrorist attack, the Fort Hood shooting was an attack against military personnel and therefore not terrorism, as was the shooting of the one soldier outside a recruiting station. You forgot though the successful terrorist attack by Joe Stack against the federal building in Austin. So there have been successfully pulled of terrorist attacks.
Their scale however is nothing compared to the attack that occurred under Bush, a little something called 9/11 that killed 3,000 people, and your creative accounting to blame Obama and absolve Bush of responsibility for terrorism, attempted terrorism, or violent shootings that occur during their presidency is the height of dishonest hackery.
Uh-HUH...And I noticed you FAILED to address the rest of my comments...
And NEXT time you quote me? INCLUDE the entire fucking quote?
I didn't fail anything. I didn't bother to address the rest of the drivel because it had no point and wasn't remotely honest. The idea that all Democratic presidents and only Democratic presidents invite terrorism considering the records of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II is as I said the height of dishonest hackery.
And for someone complaining about not responding to all comments, you sure pull something funny. In response to the following passage:
QUENTIN[B said:]Obama has been terrible in his handling of terrorism[/b], because he's still illegally asserting the right to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial based on suspicion alone, illegally asserting the right to assassinate an American citizen like al-Waliki based on his dictatorial decree alone and revoking the right to charge or trial and skipping right on to the death penalty, using predator drones to attack and kill hundreds of civilians in Pakistan, a country we have no authority to invade or attack and are not at war with, etc.
However, he has not been "soft" on terror and that's far from the problem. The attempted but failed underwear bombing was an attempted terrorist attack, the Fort Hood shooting was an attack against military personnel and therefore not terrorism, as was the shooting of the one soldier outside a recruiting station. You forgot though the successful terrorist attack by Joe Stack against the federal building in Austin. So there have been successfully pulled of terrorist attacks.
with "YOU may cease your cherry picking, and cease defending Obama." and "So spare me pal. *I* ain't buyin' yer defense of Obama at all."
That shows literally a reading comprehension issue.
I say Obama has been terrible when it comes to terrorism, spend a paragraph enumerating all the horrible policies he has enacted or continued, spend another paragraph noting the attacks that have occurred on American soil including one you forgot, and you call that a "defense of Obama."
I'm not cherry picking and I'm defending no one, that's clear from what I said. Obama's policies in relation to terrorism are terrible. So were Bush's before him, when the biggest attack ever happened despite ample warning. So was Clinton before him with the second biggest attack at OKC. So were Reagan and Bush I before them who created then pissed off Al Qaeda. I have no love for either party, so unlike you I'm able to recognize the significant flaws in each and don't pretend that all problems come from one aisle, particularly when it was the other guys who dropped the biggest ball in history on the subject (9/11).
And I'll quote whatever portions I feel are relevant and deserve a response, if I choose to respond. Deal with it.
*WE* have ONE thing in common...No love for either party. You've stated it...as I can see here. They've been the Anethma to what the Founders laid at our feet, and for US to defend or lose.
So I think you may lay OFF your list of politicians...especially those of Republican persuation...
*I Get it* and have for some time.
MY point of contention, and which *I* laid forth to you was to QUOTE my entire words or CEASE the crap you laid at MY feet with partials as you so demonstrated.
WE aren't that far apart.
Get it?