Barack Obama and Foreign Policies

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

-The idea that DC's restriction on gun ownership is "reasonable" under the Second Amendment.

-The idea that increasing capital gains tax will only damage the elite.

-The liberal ideology which asserts that government has unfettered right to your income, and the amount you're allowed to retain is due only to legislative grace.

-The concept of government determining what income you need and what is superfluous for your situation.

-Making the United States more subservient to international organizations, when many of those organizations (The UN, for example) are incredibly weak on matters of grave concern to the United States.

-The idea that increased corporate regulation and taxation will benefit America.

-The idea that an appropriate role for government is to determine what amount of profitability is simply too much for an American corporation.

That's Democrats...not just Obama.

-The idea that the terrorist is someone who can be rationalized with, yet Barack Obama apparently finds it too politically incorrect to reference what faith the terrorists who are waging war on America belong to.

I'm not sure I've heard/read about him wanting to rationalize with terrorists. See scbelle's comment above.

-His ideas about what jurists should make up the SCOTUS (those who believe the Constitution is a malleable document).

Hmm...are you saying the Constitution isn't a malleable document? Based on the laws that are allowed to be passed, they could've fooled me.

I do get what you're saying all in all.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

That's Democrats...not just Obama.


I'm not sure I've heard/read about him wanting to rationalize with terrorists. See scbelle's comment above.


Hmm...are you saying the Constitution isn't a malleable document? Based on the laws that are allowed to be passed, they could've fooled me.

I do get what you're saying all in all.

a) You're right, I'm not merely singling out Barack Obama, this could apply to most any liberal Democrat.

b) Obama is trying to draw a distinction which appeases his base. They pride themselves on the ability to use reason instead of force, despite the fact that it will almost certainly be completely unsuccessful in the named situations. If you're not bringing anything to the table, then what is the point? If you go to Iran without points to concede, it'll be a very short visit. If I thought Barack was just saying "Listen, we will make (cursory) attempts to convince Iran that they should do ________, and then we will follow it up with action," then I wouldn't be overly concerned. Maybe he will do just that, but I certainly have seen no indication that he's got the required equipment (spine). Rather, I think this line of talk is a political ploy to satisfy the fringe elements of the Democratic party who harbor anti-war and anti-military sentiments.

c) The Constitution is a malleable document...when the changes are made by the people and the legislative branch. It shouldn't be altered according to what "feels right" to liberal jurists.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

c) The Constitution is a malleable document...when the changes are made by the people and the legislative branch. It shouldn't be altered according to what "feels right" to liberal jurists.

I was somewhat agreeing with you. People twist the Constitution to say whatever they think it should say or they just disregard it altogether and just pass contradictory laws anyway.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I was somewhat agreeing with you. People twist the Constitution to say whatever they think it should say or they just disregard it altogether and just pass contradictory laws anyway.

Indeed, and unfortunately I don't think Barack Obama shares that concern.