Obama Continues Bush's Illegal Drone Surveillance

[PhillyPhreak54]

Bush on the NBC set with Bob Costas talking about the Olympics...

Costs asked about the Russian/Georgian conflict and Bush says how the Olympics are supposed to represent peace and promote peace but we have a conflict going on.

Um, George? Didya forget about YOUR Iraq war?

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Bush's 5 best and 5 worst economic moves

There are actually 5 best.  Really.

[ice grillin you]

hes really reaching to even be able to get 5

fighting the war on terrorism is not an economic move and even if it was he shouldnt get credit for it...as if there would be a president that wouldnt fight terrorism?...not to mention the iraq war which he defended by saying it was to fight terrorism has not helped the economy

[Wingspan]

hes really reaching to even be able to get 5

fighting the war on terrorism is not an economic move and even if it was he shouldnt get credit for it...as if there would be a president that wouldnt fight terrorism?...not to mention the iraq war which he defended by saying it was to fight terrorism has not helped the economy

Bill Clinton

Kenya embassy bombing, uss cole, first wtc bombs, for all intents and purposes went unanswered.

I am not saying he condoned anything...just saying that the responses to these acts were pretty weak.

[Cerevant]

Wow, these lists lean way right.

1) Getting the 2003 tax cuts passed.

Maybe.

2) Lifting the executive ban on offshore oil drilling.

Bullshtein.  Lifting the ban had zero effect on anything.  Administration officials admit that if they started work today, offshore drilling would not produce a drop of gas for 2-3 years.

3) Pushing Social Security reform.

This is a definite need.

4) Fighting the war on terrorism.

No no no.  Attacking Iraq started the oil price climb, and has devastated the US budget situation.  This is a 100% negative for the economy, and has been poorly executed politically.

5) Picking Hank Paulson.

Yeah, whatever.

Now the Dumbest Moves:
1) Getting the 2001 tax cuts passed.

God forbid we aren't helping big money.

2) Failing to reform entitlements.

Gets credit for wanting it, but dinged for not pulling it off?

3) Passing Medicare Part D.
4) Boosting big, expensive government.

Bush is definitely a borrow and spend Republican.

5) Not supporting the U.S. dollar.

How?  When the economy is tanking the dollar is going to go with it.  Let's go borrow some more...

[ice grillin you]

hes really reaching to even be able to get 5

fighting the war on terrorism is not an economic move and even if it was he shouldnt get credit for it...as if there would be a president that wouldnt fight terrorism?...not to mention the iraq war which he defended by saying it was to fight terrorism has not helped the economy

Bill Clinton

Kenya embassy bombing, uss cole, first wtc bombs, for all intents and purposes went unanswered.

I am not saying he condoned anything...just saying that the responses to these acts were pretty weak.

yet they were still all better responses than invading iraq

plus those were all pre 911 incidents....the bush admin did nothing about  the cole attack either...it was a different world then

[Wingspan]

I don't consider the iraq invasion/war an anti-terrorism act.

[ice grillin you]

I don't consider the iraq invasion/war an anti-terrorism act.

bush does

[MURP]

good read:

The Eternal Value of Privacy

[rjs246]

MURP's triumphant return comes complete with an outstanding link. Post more.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

Amen.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

I couldn't agree more.  I love personal freedoms.

Of course, Obama is also going soft on wiretapping, so once again, we have no viable choice in this election to preserve our liberties.

[ice grillin you]

obama went soft on wiretapping because america is too stupid to elect someone who would be against that because they actually believe they are gonna have their house blown up by a terrorist if we dont wiretap...and in reality where he went soft was in protecting the phone companies from litigation in the aftermath of the wiretapping...it isntt like hes for wiretapping itself

if you think obama is going to take away liberties youre crazy...the question is will he be able to give any of them back...because once you take these kinds of things away they are hard to return...and for him to even attempt to do these things he has to get elected first

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Don't worry.  I'm considering voting for Kay Hagan.

[Diomedes]

and the beat goes on...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/09/spying.on.americans/index.html

[shorebird]

The bad thing about that is that we probably know only a small part of what has actually gone on. For every incident that comes to light, there are probably numerous more that are not known about.