News Stories

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

The rest I feel you are being unfair to the president.

You are free to feel that way.

He did not make any decision on the ATF operations. You can't hold him responsible for mistakes made by a bureau under the DOJ. What does his statement of "90% of weapons in Mexico come from US" have to do with it? Nothing.

Actually his claim has a great deal to do with the Fast and Furious operation.
If he was unaware of the operation, it doesn't matter, it's still his responsibility as President, and now he will bear whatever consequences come of this screw up (one of a long line of many) on the part of BATF.

If he did know about it, then he will be in even hotter water due to the obvious connection between his call for a renewed assault weapon ban, and selling guns to Mexican drug lords makes it look like a scandalous attempt to justify such a ban was underway.

Whether true or not is irrelelvent, the facts are simple.
Holder knew what was going on and Obama is protecting Holder.

Obama should have cut Holder loose to save his own political behind.
Protecting Holder only makes Obama look either complicit or incompetent.

The NDAA? It was the budget of the defence department. If he vetoed it, he was certain to be overruled by the Congress. The law would still pass anyways, and he would open himself to all sorts of attacks. So he threatened the veto to scale down the troubling parts, and signed a statement that effectively made the indefinite detention all but impossible. It is not the best outcome you'd like to see. But it was probably the best he could do given the circumstances.

Don't make excuses for Obama.
There is no probably about it.
He caved to the military industrial complex's wishes, which shows he's weak.

FAA allowing UAV to fly in the US......how does it even affect your privacy? UAVs can't see anything you do in your home, just as a helicopter can't. If you walk outside, there are dozens of ways to observe you that are easier than flying an UAV. With UAV technology maturing and with many potential good uses of it, it's a natural step to open up the airspace to UAVs.

You're kidding?
You have heard of the 4th Amendment, about how American citizens shall not be subject to "searches..." without a warrant.
Flying a drone with weapons (like the Shadowhawk) and/or cameras that can see into private areas of a person's home or yard is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment.
Even the ACLU understands this.

Obama's foreign policies are far more sensible than Bush's. His administration is much more inclined to seek cooperation with allies, a stark contrast of Bush's unilateralism. He started an operation in Libya after securing a resolution in UN, support from Arab countries, and allies to participate. The operation ended with its main goal achieved and no additional troops deployed in the region. He ended Iraq War as scheduled. He confronted Iran with the harsh sanctions and forced them back to negotiation. He didn't make progress on Israel and Palestine but that's pretty much the expected outcome - Israel's right wing government was not interested in talks. On Afghanistan, he had to make troops stay to stabilize the situation. A premature withdrawal may well see Taliban coming back in power and bring trouble in the future. I really don't see any serious mistake from Obama in foreign policies.

The Iraq war is not over.

Leon Penetta is continuing the exact same policy under Obama as Bush.
How is that any different from Bush with the same Secretary of Defense in charge?
Bush actually did go to the UN to get their permission, even though it was rejected.
Who do think told his administration there were WMDs?
My problem with Obama is that he is supposed to go to congress, NOT the UN, to get permission to wage war.
However, Obama has simply followed Bush's bad example and used the UN as an excuse to engage in military combat operations without congressional approval.

Maybe I'm not being fair, but sometimes the truth isn't.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Well, if we're going by a loose definition of the word 'satellite', just shooting the rocket itself up there would do, I think.

All you need is for the rocket to reach a point of orbit where it can't be pulled back straight down to Earth. There......the rocket has become the satellite.

[Ithekro]

The provision that keeps getting talked about in the NDAA...the military doesn't want it. Nor does it seem like it is a viable threat, as US Citizens are excempt from it.

Quite simply put, if that clause is ever used (and proven to have been used) against a US Citizen, it would be classified as an illegal order under the US Constitution (which the NDAA does not override in any way). It could get the soldiers and officers that follow those orders court marshalled, and if the President gives those order, could get him impeached.

It seems like just something some doofus in Congress cooked up to get others in trouble.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It seems like just something some doofus in Congress cooked up to get others in trouble.

Aren't they doing others thing than such actions, blocking usefull stuffs and promoting themself ?

[Ithekro]

Potentially getting someone else in power in trouble can benefit one seeking power.

Also it can keep someone in a supposedly higher position under a lower position's thumb.

Recall that the Congress under President Andrew Johnson crafted some legislation to prevent Johnson from doing something he was already doing (Tenure of Office Act), and impeached him for it. They also managed the votes so he would remain in office by only one vote...thus a threat to him directly from Congress.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Wouldn't want the Chinese "worried" about anything now, would we?

Hell yes if you owe China trillions of dollars. /sarcastic

Seriously though, yes, China's stance on the issue of peninsula is very relevant. But unfortunately for us, it is hard to tell between the officials being serious and they releasing a statement for statement's sake. Reading the words is one way to tell.

------------------------------------------
As for the satellite, I doubt anyone is really concerned about whether it will be highly sophisticated or simple, the point is that there not much difference of launching a satellite and a missile carrying a war head, and this will be seen as an experiment on their payload abilities.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Actually his claim has a great deal to do with the Fast and Furious operation.
If he was unaware of the operation, it doesn't matter, it's still his responsibility as President, and now he will bear whatever consequences come of this screw up (one of a long line of many) on the part of BATF.

The criticisms of the "Fast and Furious" operation are a bit over-the-top. People are upset because some of the weapons that were knowingly (but unintentionally) allowed into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels were used in some violent confrontations. While that's understandable, let me ask you this: do you truly believe that the cartels would not have had a significant amount of weapons if the operation didn't take place? If it wasn't a tagged gun that we knew about, it would have been another gun. The way that people go on about it, you'd think that this operation was the difference between the cartels fighting with rocks and their fighting with guns. That's fantasy.

The act of "gunwalking" (allowing the purchases to be made, and then following it) took place over the course of about five years, and actually started under President Bush. The idea behind it was solid: no matter how hard we try, we haven't been able to cut off the supply of weapons to the cartels as we have been operating. By allowing a cartel purchaser to make the purchase, and then following him, we could nab two birds with one net: having direct proof of involvement in arms trafficking, we would arrest the purchaser (my understanding is that, at present, we can only deny a sale to them because of suspicion) and arrest their cartel contact. The weapons would then be retrieved. If it worked as planned, there would be no issue of weapons getting away, and the cartel's weapons trafficking network would actually be losing members.

The problem is that our surveillance and tracking isn't perfect. Under Bush, no arrests were made because even though we tracked the traffickers to the border and informed the Mexican police about it, they were unable to continue tracking where we left off. Even though we began to make arrests under Obama, we could not track everyone, and a number of weapons slipped through the cracks. That's where the anger came from.

I'll reiterate again that this was not the difference between the cartels having no guns, or even significantly fewer guns. It's obvious that our attempts to control gun sales aren't preventing the cartels from obtaining weapons. The ideas behind these operations were to be a bit more proactive, removing the cartel's purchasing network. Solid in theory, but as far as short-term thinking goes, it's a terrible idea.

But all of this talk about focusing on the weapons is really rather ridiculous. Declawing the cartels from our end won't fix anything. Seeing how militarized they've become, they could probably create their own weapons. Where is the source of their power and influence coming from? Money. Where are they getting their money from? Illegal drug sales. What happens if the drugs aren't illegal anymore? The money flow dries up, and with it, the cartels. History has already shown that this is the outcome: see the mafia and the ban on alcohol, the Prohibition of the 1920's. I don't do drugs, never have and intend not to, but I think this entire thing is utterly foolish. Just legalize the damn things already.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

The criticisms of the "Fast and Furious" operation are a bit over-the-top. People are upset because some of the weapons that were knowingly (but unintentionally) allowed into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels were used in some violent confrontations. While that's understandable, let me ask you this: do you truly believe that the cartels would not have had a significant amount of weapons if the operation didn't take place? If it wasn't a tagged gun that we knew about, it would have been another gun. The way that people go on about it, you'd think that this operation was the difference between the cartels fighting with rocks and their fighting with guns. That's fantasy.

I know of no one making the claim that the cartels wouldn't be armed to the teeth without "Fast and Furious."
What most are arguing is that it is pure hypocrisy for Obama and/or Holder to call for an "assault weapon" ban if they knew the BATF was selling fully auto weapons to drug dealers.

Having been a gunsmith and thus required to have an FFL, let me assure you Ledgem that you cannot buy a .30 caliber, tripod mounted machine gun over-the-counter at a gun shop. The procedure requires filling out a Form-4, going through a long waiting period for a Class III license transfer (1-6 months), and an intrusive FBI background check. Only ATF can sell such a weapon (or authorize the sale of such a weapon) in a short period of time at point of sale.

The act of "gunwalking" (allowing the purchases to be made, and then following it) took place over the course of about five years, and actually started under President Bush. The idea behind it was solid: no matter how hard we try, we haven't been able to cut off the supply of weapons to the cartels as we have been operating. By allowing a cartel purchaser to make the purchase, and then following him, we could nab two birds with one net: having direct proof of involvement in arms trafficking, we would arrest the purchaser (my understanding is that, at present, we can only deny a sale to them because of suspicion) and arrest their cartel contact. The weapons would then be retrieved. If it worked as planned, there would be no issue of weapons getting away, and the cartel's weapons trafficking network would actually be losing members.

The idea was solid alright.
Sell guns to drug lords, bust the drug lords with American guns, blame "lax" gun-laws for them getting them and then push for more gun control.
The proverbial "Genie is out of the bottle" on this issue and there is no putting it back in.

The only question now is how much did Obama know?

The supply of actual assault weapons used by the drug cartels is coming from Central and South American sources.

Therefore, with that information at hand it becomes obvious that "Gunwalker," "Fast and Furious," and "Castaway" were all part of another screw up gun control scheme cooked up by the BATF.
There is no doubt about this anymore.

The problem is that our surveillance and tracking isn't perfect. Under Bush, no arrests were made because even though we tracked the traffickers to the border and informed the Mexican police about it, they were unable to continue tracking where we left off. Even though we began to make arrests under Obama, we could not track everyone, and a number of weapons slipped through the cracks. That's where the anger came from.

You make a fine case for sealing the border shut with military force, since after all, the Mexican gangs are armed with military grade weapons from Central American governments.
Closing the border and stopping all illegal crossing will stem the flow of weapons considerably; though not stop it entirely.

But all of this talk about focusing on the weapons is really rather ridiculous. Declawing the cartels from our end won't fix anything. Seeing how militarized they've become, they could probably create their own weapons. Where is the source of their power and influence coming from? Money. Where are they getting their money from? Illegal drug sales. What happens if the drugs aren't illegal anymore? The money flow dries up, and with it, the cartels. History has already shown that this is the outcome: see the mafia and the ban on alcohol, the Prohibition of the 1920's. I don't do drugs, never have and intend not to, but I think this entire thing is utterly foolish. Just legalize the damn things already.

On this we agree completely.
Legalize the drugs and you end the power of the drug gangs.
Colorado might be the first state to legalize Marijuana.
Wish us luck!

[Kokukirin]

You're kidding?
You have heard of the 4th Amendment, about how American citizens shall not be subject to "searches..." without a warrant.
Flying a drone with weapons (like the Shadowhawk) and/or cameras that can see into private areas of a person's home or yard is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment.
Even the ACLU understands this.

Looking at your house from the sky is not a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Don't make excuses for Obama.
There is no probably about it.
He caved to the military industrial complex's wishes, which shows he's weak.

I take it as you just have no better points to make on the NDAA.

Leon Penetta is continuing the exact same policy under Obama as Bush.
How is that any different from Bush with the same Secretary of Defense in charge?
Bush actually did go to the UN to get their permission, even though it was rejected.
Who do think told his administration there were WMDs?
My problem with Obama is that he is supposed to go to congress, NOT the UN, to get permission to wage war.
However, Obama has simply followed Bush's bad example and used the UN as an excuse to engage in military combat operations without congressional approval.

Uh, where to begin. This is a mess of confusion, half-truths and outright lies.

1) First of all, you are too vague about what is the "exact same policy". I don't know which policy you are referring to.
2) Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates were the Secretary of Defense under Bush. Obama continued with Robert Gates for until 2011. Leon Penetta was not Secretary of Defense under Bush at any point.
3) I know very well that Bush did go to the UN and failed to get a resolution. The problem is that he started the war anyways. Obama did wait to get support from all parties before acting.
4) Bush ignored UN's decision when he started the Iraq War. So I don't know where you get "used the UN as an excuse" part from.
5) So basically, you want the president to not go to the UN, but to seek support in Congress. Well, that is exactly what Bush did. The Congress authorized military actions against Iraq. The UN did not. Obama did the opposite, but somehow you still spinned his policies to be "same as Bush".
6) That said, it would have been better if Obama seeked support in Congress as well, but I can understand why he did not. When airstrikes began, Qaddafi's forces were closing in on the last rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Time was running out.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I know of no one making the claim that the cartels wouldn't be armed to the teeth without "Fast and Furious."

I've never heard anyone outwardly say it, either. I think that anyone who did would quickly realize how ridiculous it sounded. But people aren't even thinking about that. They hear that one of our border patrol agents was killed, or that mass murders were carried out, and that some of the firearms that we let slip through were on the scene, and then they get upset. I'm not going to go digging through the news articles that came out around that time, but I'm fairly certain that there were a few quotes of people saying things like "this could have been prevented" or "this might not have happened" if the operation hadn't taken place. Those statements may represent half-thoughts if people are making them, because I don't see how the other half of that thought could be anything but "the cartels wouldn't have had guns to commit these acts with otherwise." What difference does it make whether people were killed with guns that we had allowed through or that were obtained through other means? The crime would most certainly have occurred regardless.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

What most are arguing is that it is pure hypocrisy for Obama and/or Holder to call for an "assault weapon" ban if they knew the BATF was selling fully auto weapons to drug dealers.

I'm not sure how this is hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if the weapons were banned, but they allowed the sales to take place anyway. They want to ban them, but they're not banned yet. There's no hypocrisy taking place: they're acting within the rules of the law, while desiring to change the law.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Having been a gunsmith and thus required to have an FFL, let me assure you Ledgem that you cannot buy a .30 caliber, tripod mounted machine gun over-the-counter at a gun shop. The procedure requires filling out a Form-4, going through a long waiting period for a Class III license transfer (1-6 months), and an intrusive FBI background check. Only ATF can sell such a weapon (or authorize the sale of such a weapon) in a short period of time at point of sale.

I respect your knowledge in this area, but why did you bring this up? I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make with it.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The idea was solid alright.
Sell guns to drug lords, bust the drug lords with American guns, blame "lax" gun-laws for them getting them and then push for more gun control.
The proverbial "Genie is out of the bottle" on this issue and there is no putting it back in.

When you say "gun control" I think of restricted sales. The article you linked to talks about having gun dealers provide tracing information back to the government when multiple rifles are sold to the same person within a relatively short period of time. There are no restrictions beyond that. While I'm not a fan of giving the government too much information, I don't find myself strongly opposed to the idea of having that particular information go back to the government.

My guess is that you think that the whole gunwalking operation was a setup to get legislation like this put through. I disagree, and think that the idea for the legislation came afterward. It honestly doesn't matter, though, because there's no proof to show that the intent was one way or another.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

You make a fine case for sealing the border shut with military force, since after all, the Mexican gangs are armed with military grade weapons from Central American governments.
Closing the border and stopping all illegal crossing will stem the flow of weapons considerably; though not stop it entirely.

Closing what border - the Mexican-American border? What good would that do? The cartels are wreaking havoc and building up their power within Mexico. They are not coming into America with their violence and military-level hardware - at least, not yet. If that starts happening, then yes, locking down the border might be justified. But unless closing the border completely stops the flow of drugs and money, it won't do much to the cartels.

Good luck with the marijuana legalization.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

Looking at your house from the sky is not a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Better re-read that case you cited.

Justice O'Connor's opinion: "it is not conclusive to observe, as the plurality does, that "[a]ny member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse." Nor is it conclusive that police helicopters may often fly at 400 feet. If the public rarely, if ever, travels overhead at such altitudes, the observation cannot be said to be from a vantage point generally used by the public and Riley cannot be said to have "knowingly expose[d]" his greenhouse to public view.

Nevertheless, O'Connor concurred with the plurality opinion because she thought the defendant still needed to show that public use of the relevant airspace was uncommon. The Justice closed by saying flights less than 400 feet (120 m) in altitude "may be sufficiently rare that police surveillance from such altitudes would violate reasonable expectations of privacy."

A drone helicopter, such as the Shadowhawk, is not a public vehicle (since it can be armed with a 40 mm grenade launcher or shotgun), has nightvision thermal-imaging, motion detectors, etc.; and therefore would violate reasonable expectations of privacy and security under the 4th Amendment.

I take it as you just have no better points to make on the NDAA.

I don't need to.
Obama said he wouldn't sign the damn thing with the Indefinite detention provision and then reversed himself on it.
He caved into pressure from the MIC, that is an excellent point and an incontrovertable one.

Uh, where to begin. This is a mess of confusion, half-truths and outright lies.

Yes you did post a great deal of confusion, and lies below.

1) First of all, you are too vague about what is the "exact same policy". I don't know which policy you are referring to.

They're called the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, you may have heard about them.

2) Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates were the Secretary of Defense under Bush. Obama continued with Robert Gates for until 2011. Leon Penetta was not Secretary of Defense under Bush at any point.

On this point I did confuse Gates with Penetta, but the point is still valid. Obama kept Gates on to continue the Bush policies.

3) I know very well that Bush did go to the UN and failed to get a resolution. The problem is that he started the war anyways. Obama did wait to get support from all parties before acting.

Then you acknowledge my point that both Presidents sought UN approval.
Glad you concede that point.

4) Bush ignored UN's decision when he started the Iraq War. So I don't know where you get "used the UN as an excuse" part from.

Bush used the UN IAEA report as an excuse to go to war with Iraq, Obama is doing the same damn thing.

5) So basically, you want the president to not go to the UN, but to seek support in Congress. Well, that is exactly what Bush did. The Congress authorized military actions against Iraq. The UN did not. Obama did the opposite, but somehow you still spinned his policies to be "same as Bush".

Clearly you are confused here.
The foreign polices with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan were the same, as is the idea that the US needs to police the world.

6) That said, it would have been better if Obama seeked support in Congress as well, but I can understand why he did not. When airstrikes began, Qaddafi's forces were closing in on the last rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Time was running out.

That is no excuse for the President and is nearly the same type of thinking that went into why Bush and Blair acted without the UN. They claimed that time was short and Saddam would have WMDs of a nuclear nature.

[Kokukirin]

Better re-read that case you cited.

Justice O'Connor's opinion: "it is not conclusive to observe, as the plurality does, that "[a]ny member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse." Nor is it conclusive that police helicopters may often fly at 400 feet. If the public rarely, if ever, travels overhead at such altitudes, the observation cannot be said to be from a vantage point generally used by the public and Riley cannot be said to have "knowingly expose[d]" his greenhouse to public view.

Nevertheless, O'Connor concurred with the plurality opinion because she thought the defendant still needed to show that public use of the relevant airspace was uncommon. The Justice closed by saying flights less than 400 feet (120 m) in altitude "may be sufficiently rare that police surveillance from such altitudes would violate reasonable expectations of privacy."

A drone helicopter, such as the Shadowhawk, is not a public vehicle (since it can be armed with a 40 mm grenade launcher or shotgun), has nightvision thermal-imaging, motion detectors, etc.; and therefore would violate reasonable expectations of privacy and security under the 4th Amendment.

The part you quoted is not really concerning whether the plane is armed or have nightvision, but whether the view from the helicopter is commonly accessed by the public.

If the UAV has a mean to penetrate your roof and look at places that you don't expect people to see from outside, and does so without a warrant, then it is a violation of your Constitutional rights. But it does not violate if it is just flying overhead and look down.

They're called the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, you may have heard about them.

Starting a war and inheriting a war are quite different things.

Obama kept Gates on to continue the Bush policies.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq were started while Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense. I guess you can say Obama continued Bush policies in the sense of following the plan to stabilize the countries and pull out as scheduled. And that's a sensible thing to do.

Then you acknowledge my point that both Presidents sought UN approval.
Glad you concede that point.

The key point is that Bush went on to declare war when UN opposed it. But yeah, feel free to keep ignoring it and pretend you get it right.

Bush used the UN IAEA report as an excuse to go to war with Iraq, Obama is doing the same damn thing.

Um , didn't the IAEA report that they did not find evidence of active nuclear weapon development before the Iraq War? The UN inspectors were still working in Iraq to verify Iraq's compliance when US decided to strike.

Obama looks very reluctant to go to war. For one, oil price will skyrocket if the war begins, and that is bad for the still vulnerable economy and consequently his chance at re-election. He has been trying to hold Israel back from starting their own airstrikes, preferring to impose tough economic sanctions to force Iran to back down.

It may still come to war, but to claim Obama is hawkish like Bush is pretty ridiculous.

Clearly you are confused here.
The foreign polices with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan were the same, as is the idea that the US needs to police the world.

As stated above, starting wars and inheriting wars are entirely different matters.

Regarding US policing the world, well, it is a long-standing US foreign and military strategy. One can hardly expect Obama to abandon it.

These are rather weak and overly broad examples to demonstrate Obama's policies being same as Bush's.

That is no excuse for the President and is nearly the same type of thinking that went into why Bush and Blair acted without the UN. They claimed that time was short and Saddam would have WMDs of a nuclear nature.

Qaddafi's force closing in on Benghazi was a fact. The WMDs story was a lie, and the situation would not be nearly as urgent as Libya even if it were true.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I've never heard anyone outwardly say it, either. I think that anyone who did would quickly realize how ridiculous it sounded. But people aren't even thinking about that. They hear that one of our border patrol agents was killed, or that mass murders were carried out, and that some of the firearms that we let slip through were on the scene, and then they get upset. I'm not going to go digging through the news articles that came out around that time, but I'm fairly certain that there were a few quotes of people saying things like "this could have been prevented" or "this might not have happened" if the operation hadn't taken place. Those statements may represent half-thoughts if people are making them, because I don't see how the other half of that thought could be anything but "the cartels wouldn't have had guns to commit these acts with otherwise." What difference does it make whether people were killed with guns that we had allowed through or that were obtained through other means? The crime would most certainly have occurred regardless.

Agreed.

I'm not sure how this is hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if the weapons were banned, but they allowed the sales to take place anyway. They want to ban them, but they're not banned yet. There's no hypocrisy taking place: they're acting within the rules of the law, while desiring to change the law.

The hypocrisy lies in the fact that before the scandal broke the Obama administration was claiming the gun violence in Mexico is the fault of "lax gun laws" in the US, while at the same time they were selling guns to the drug cartels though "Fast and Furious".

That's akin (though not exactly the same) as the Ted Haggard scandal.
He was preaching against homosexuality, demanding gay marriage be banned, and yet at the same time was engaged in sex with a gay male prostitute.

I respect your knowledge in this area, but why did you bring this up? I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make with it.

Sorry, allow me to clarify.
I was pointing out that the machine guns in the hands of the drug cartels are not coming from FFL holders in the US unless ATF is authorizing the straw purchases.
The laws on machine guns and actual assault rifles in the US are very strict and covered under both the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968.
Therefore, all this talk of banning "assault weapons" is nonsense since what was banned in 1994 were actually semi-automatic civilian firearms not "assault weapons".
No ban on guns will stop the flow of military style weapons into the hands of drug cartels.

When you say "gun control" I think of restricted sales. The article you linked to talks about having gun dealers provide tracing information back to the government when multiple rifles are sold to the same person within a relatively short period of time. There are no restrictions beyond that. While I'm not a fan of giving the government too much information, I don't find myself strongly opposed to the idea of having that particular information go back to the government.

Such a law is useless when ATF is selling the guns to the drug dealers.
Why should law abiding Americans have to go through more hassle when they are not the party responsible for arming the drug gangs?

My guess is that you think that the whole gunwalking operation was a setup to get legislation like this put through. I disagree, and think that the idea for the legislation came afterward. It honestly doesn't matter, though, because there's no proof to show that the intent was one way or another.

Close, but not exactly.
My feeling is that this operation was ordered in an honest attempt to try and track guns back to the drug cartels.
It was the ATF that used it to their advantage in order to try and expand their authority and justify the existence of their agency.
Ultimately, the BATFE is responsible for this which is why it transcends Presidential administrations and even congresses over at least a decade if not more.

Closing what border - the Mexican-American border? What good would that do? The cartels are wreaking havoc and building up their power within Mexico. They are not coming into America with their violence and military-level hardware - at least, not yet. If that starts happening, then yes, locking down the border might be justified. But unless closing the border completely stops the flow of drugs and money, it won't do much to the cartels.

Yes the Mexican-American border.
Without getting into the Mérida Initiative , I think a stronger border policy would make a considerable difference in the flow of drugs and money across the border.
As would ending "Fast and Furious" or any other operation akin to it.

Good luck with the marijuana legalization.

Thank you, we'll need it.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

The part you quoted is not really concerning whether the plane is armed or have nightvision, but whether the view from the helicopter is commonly accessed by the public.

If the UAV has a mean to penetrate your roof and look at places that you don't expect people to see from outside, and does so without a warrant, then it is a violation of your Constitutional rights. But it does not violate if it is just flying overhead and look down.

Again you miss the point.
The point of linking to what the ShadowHawk can do is to illustrate to you Kukukirin that the drones are capable of seeing into homes, killing people, and doing what is beyond a reasonable use of public airspace.

Starting a war and inheriting a war are quite different things.

Continuing a war is also different, and it is what Obama did with Iraq, and is still doing in Afghanistan.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq were started while Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense. I guess you can say Obama continued Bush policies in the sense of following the plan to stabilize the countries and pull out as scheduled. And that's a sensible thing to do.

Rumsfeld?
Who cares about Rumsfeld?
I was referring to Robert Gates.
Obama continued the foreign policy of Bush, that being intervention into other countries by the US.
Their policies are nearly identical, and you just admitted that, so it shows you know I'm correct on this.

The key point is that Bush went on to declare war when UN opposed it. But yeah, feel free to keep ignoring it and pretend you get it right.

The point was both Presidents sought UN approval, neither one of them NEEDS UN approval.
However, both do need congressional approval to declare/wage war.
So if approval it what is bothering you, then Obama is the one who didn't get it for Libya and for a President that has sworn to uphold the US constitution, that actually does matter.

Um , didn't the IAEA report that they did not find evidence of active nuclear weapon development before the Iraq War? The UN inspectors were still working in Iraq to verify Iraq's compliance when US decided to strike.

Not quite, their findings were inconclusive because Saddam wasn't cooperating with them, but they did not rule out him continuing his secret nuclear program.
And yes Bush and Blair jumped the gun and attacked without any real cause.

Obama looks very reluctant to go to war. For one, oil price will skyrocket if the war begins, and that is bad for the still vulnerable economy and consequently his chance at re-election. He has been trying to hold Israel back from starting their own airstrikes, preferring to impose tough economic sanctions to force Iran to back down.

You just made my point for me.
It's an election year and Obama knows that any significant spike in fuel prices means he's out of the job.
However, another major reason why Obama hasn't gone to war with Iran is because Russia will not tolerate it.

It may still come to war, but to claim Obama is hawkish like Bush is pretty ridiculous.

No such claim was made.
Whether cautious or reactionary is moot to my point.
My point is that Obama is acting in the same way Bush did with regard to the US being the World's police.

As stated above, starting wars and inheriting wars are entirely different matters.

Regarding US policing the world, well, it is a long-standing US foreign and military strategy. One can hardly expect Obama to abandon it.

These are rather weak and overly broad examples to demonstrate Obama's policies being same as Bush's.

If this is a long-standing US foreign policy and Military Industrial Complex strategy, then there is no difference between Obama's foreign policy and Bush's, is there.
Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum would push the same foreign policy as Obama if elected, and that was my original point wasn't it?

Qaddafi's force closing in on Benghazi was a fact. The WMDs story was a lie, and the situation would not be nearly as urgent as Libya even if it were true.

Let me state my point again.
It doesn't matter whether Qaddafi's force was closing in or not.
Obama had no business getting the US involved in the internal affairs of Libya.
Just as Bush and Blair had no business rushing into Iraq with military force because they feared Saddam was making a nuke.
In other words, both Presidents used military force in situations they had no right to use them in.
Saddam didn't attack the US, and Qaddafi didn't attack the US.
The only time the US is supposed to attack another country is in defense of itself or its allies.

[ganbaru]

Iraq militia frees U.S. hostage after 9 months
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82G0AM20120317

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I don't need to.
Obama said he wouldn't sign the damn thing with the Indefinite detention provision and then reversed himself on it.
He caved into pressure from the MIC, that is an excellent point and an incontrovertable one.

You do realise that this clause was piggybacking a budget and that the priority was the budget at the time, not that specific clause right? You do know the meaning of compromise as well as give and take, do you not? That measure was also passed with overwhelming approval (93 to 7) in Congress, which means even had Obama veto'd that bill, they had more than enough votes (Two thirds are needed) to overrule that veto.

Please redirect your ire to your member of Congress, tyvm.

[Urzu 7]

From what I can judge in this thread, it seems like GundamFan could cut Obama a bit of slack, but for a guy who is not an Obama fan, well, it is just great to see one like him. One that is intelligent and backs his views with lots of details (whether they be spot on or inaccurate) and isn't just spouting BS for most of the time they complain about him, and one that isn't, well, a racist.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

From what I can judge in this thread, it seems like GundamFan could cut Obama a bit of slack, but for a guy who is not an Obama fan, well, it is just great to see one like him. One that is intelligent and backs his views with lots of details (whether they be spot on or inaccurate) and isn't just spouting BS for most of the time they complain about him, and one that isn't, well, a racist.

Thank you Urzu 7.

For the record, if that jackass Santorum gets the GOP nomination, I may actually vote for Obama just to make sure Tricky-Rick doesn't get the Presidency.
Santorum is a nutjob that really must be stopped.

[Urzu 7]

Haha, if Santorum gets the nomination, I think even JustinStrife would vote for Obama...maybe not, but I doubt he'd vote for Santorum.

If it was Santorum vs. Obama, I think Obama would win by a lot, but still, I wouldn't want it to come to Santorum getting the nomination. I'd be scared shitless of Santorum winning, just because the chance is there.

[Ithekro]

Just for giggles, and because no one talks about them at all, how about I list the non-Republican and non-Democractic choices for President in this election year:

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2012

Third party and independent candidates


Parties with multiple candidates listed have not chosen a nominee yet
Names of official nominees are in Bold

Americans Elect



See also: Americans Elect

• Laurence Kotlikoff, economist of Massachusetts
• Buddy Roemer, Former Governor of Louisiana

American Third Position Party



See also: American Third Position Party

• Merlin Miller, activist and independent filmmaker from Tennessee; vice-presidential nominee: Virginia Abernethy of Tennessee

America's Party



See also: America's Party (political party)

• Tom Hoefling, National chairman of America's Party, of Iowa; vice-presidential nominee: J.D. Ellis of Tennessee

Constitution Party



See also: Constitution Party (United States)

• Virgil Goode, former U.S. Congressman from Virginia
• Robby Wells, former Savannah State University football coach, from North Carolina

Green Party



See also: Green Party of the United States

• Roseanne Barr, actress and comedian of Hawaii
• Kent Mesplay, Green Party activist and air quality inspector from California
• Jill Stein, physician from Massachusetts

Withdrawn candidates:

• Stewart Alexander, withdrew to accept the nomination of the Socialist Party USA (see below)

Justice Party



See also: Justice Party (United States)

• Rocky Anderson, former Mayor of Salt Lake City and founding member of the Justice Party, from Utah; vice-presidential nominee: TBA

Libertarian Party



See also: Libertarian Party (United States)

• RJ Harris, U.S. Army National Guard officer and 2010 U.S. congressional candidate of Oklahoma
• Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico
• Carl Person, attorney, of New York
• Sam Sloan, chess player and writer, of New York
• Bill Still, monetary reform activist, documentary film maker, and author from Virginia
• R. Lee Wrights, author, activist, and former Libertarian National Committee member from Texas

Party for Socialism and Liberation



See also: Party for Socialism and Liberation

• Peta Lindsay, anti-war activist from Pennsylvania; vice-presidential nominee: Yari Osorio

Prohibition Party



See also: Prohibition Party

• Jack Fellure, perennial candidate from West Virginia; vice-presidential nominee: Toby Davis of Mississippi

Reform Party USA



See also: Reform Party of the United States of America

• Former Governor Buddy Roemer of Louisiana

Withdrawn candidates:

• Robby Wells, withdrew on January 16, 2012 to seek Constitution Party nomination
• Robert David Steele, withdrew on February 23, 2012

Socialist Equality Party



See also: Socialist Equality Party (United States)

• Jerry White, journalist and 1996 and 2008 Socialist Equality Party presidential nominee, of Michigan; vice-presidential nominee: Phyllis Scherrer, of Pennsylvania

Socialist Party USA



See also: Socialist Party USA

• Stewart Alexander, activist and 2008 Socialist Party USA vice-presidential nominee from California; vice-presidential nominee: Alejandro Mendoza of Texas. Alexander was also a candidate for the Green Party's presidential nomination, before he withdrew in July 2011

Independent candidates



See also: Independent (politician)

• Lee Abramson, musician and entrepreneur, of Michigan
• Randy Blythe, singer and songwriter, of Virginia
• Robert "Naked Cowboy" Burck, street performer of New York
• Terry Jones, pastor known for publicly burning Qurans, of Florida
• Joe Schriner, former journalist, author, and perennial candidate of Ohio

So, Roseanne Barr is running for the Green Party.....