idontcare kk
-
Signed an extention of patroit act
-Lied about signing the NDAA
-Doesn't seem to care about illegals coming in
-Handled the Benghazi situation horiblly
-Handled Afgahnistan horiblly
Patroit Act extion: Extention of Patroit act, which was started by Bush(but obama extened it), which was to help find terrorist. It makes is so government can cheek your phone conversations and e-mails, and law enforcement officers can go into a persons home or buessness without permission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act So very ******** nice.
rolleyes
I'll admit, some of the parts of the NDAA are nice, but he didn't need to LIE about it. Anways, first signed last year on new years eve. It was to help budgeting for Department of Defence and to help with the terrorism problem.He signed a new one that gets anyone
suspected of terrorism. Have fun with getting locked up for being a terrorist suspect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
The Beghazi attack, killed Stevens and three embassdy personal. Asked for miltary help, but was DENIED by Obama. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/1027/Benghazi-attack-Urgent-call-for-military-help-was-denied-by-chain-of-command
Afghanistan, we went there to fight the war on terror that started with 9/11. Obama came in and just starts killing cause we might kill Osama. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html
Have fun with Obama, Obama supporters.
4laugh
Well, let's go through this:
1) Extension of some of the provisions of the US PATRIOT Act: I think this is an egregious thing that Obama did and I disagree with it. I was against it when it first was enacted by Bush and I still detest it today. However, I feel that Romney would not have been any better in this and would have pushed for an even more aggressive policy in the name of capturing terrorists in the domestic United States.
2) Lied about signing the NDAA: I don't see where you get "lying about signing" from. He didn't deny signing it. Now I'm getting the idea that you might be talking about denying that it gives any new powers that the "
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" does not already supply. But once again, I do not agree with Obama signing this one either, but I didn't see Romney doing anything to curb these powers either.
3) Doesn't seem to care about illegals coming in: Well, this is an ideological issue and it depends on how you view "not caring". I'll just leave this since we'd just be arguing back and forth.
4) Horrible handling of the Benghazi situation: It does seem the case that the Benghazi situation was handled quite poorly. However,
the article that you pointed out didn't state that Obama denied helping the embassy. It does, however, point to the possibility that Obama himself blocked any help, but it does not necessarily mean so. Clearly, there should be an investigation into the events.
5) Horrible handling of Afgahnistan: I don't agree with the predator strikes that Obama continues to use, but once again, I didn't think that Romney would do anything to stop the practice.
All in all, here was my thought process:
The powers of the president, while expanded under Obama's watch, most likely would continue on under Romney.
So I chose what I saw as the "lesser of two evils". (But really, making a post about wartime powers and the powers advocated in the "War Against Terror" as a critique of Obama? I don't see Mitt Romney or any other Republican [at least, not the current Republican party] faring any better on that front and, I would argue, they would expand the powers even further. Just stick with critiquing Obama's economic plans and policies so that you don't call the kettle black.) [If I were to make a choice, I'd prefer Jill Stein, but that's another discussion.]
0
0
150
