The spying should be criticized but I don’t see how it can be fairly described as anything other than an attempt to deal with terrorism, a real threat, and arguably, the greatest threat that the president can do something about.
“Have you seen the news lately”
So, what is being referred to here? ISIS (see terrorism), Ukraine (a travesty, but not a likely threat to the US public), what else?
I suppose the greatest threats to the US public are cancer and heart disease, but the President isn’t being taken to task regarding those threats.
suppose the greatest threats to the US public are cancer and heart disease, but the President isn’t being taken to task regarding those threats.
Unlike national defense, that’s not part of his job description.
The ads not aimed at kool-aid drinkers, Bob. It’s aimed at women and independents.
How many “real threats” has the spying stopped or revealed? If you dig down into the data, you find nothing of substance. Certainly nothing to justify the enormous effort brought to bear. Even more certainly nothing to justify the backdoor violation of the constitutional rights of those in America.
To avoid repeating old arguments: Most criticism of the president’s foreign policy involves our geopolitical standing in the world, or, occasionally, it involves the suffering of innocents in far away lands (Syria, Iraq), or sometimes it involves the danger to US personnel in far away lands (Libya, Afghanistan). But I’ve rarely seen criticism that seriously argued that US civilians living here in the USA were actually in danger because of the President’s actions. Any I’ve seen has involved terrorism, specially terrorism from Islamic extremists, and everything I’ve heard about the domestic spying indicates that it was intended to stop terrorism on US soil.
So, I’d really like to see someone defend the idea that the President isn’t keeping that nice lady in the video safe.
How is he doing that? He doesn’t even seem to be capable of keeping the White House safe.
Do you think terrorist plots to attack Americans on American soil are being detected and stopped?
As for the White House, what should the President be doing? If Obama spent more time on his own personal security detail, you’d call him narcissistic. If he took steps to stop all possible ways to attack the White House, you’d call him imperial at best, and fascist at worst. The tradeoffs between freedom and security don’t seem to be considered if you’re making the argument “He isn’t doing enough to keep us safe”, and that’s odd, coming from you.
Do you think terrorist plots to attack Americans on American soil are being detected and stopped?
The Boston Marathon bombers weren’t. Neither was the Fort Hood massacre.
As for the White House, what should the President be doing?
He should fire people when they eff up.
So, I’d really like to see someone defend the idea that the President isn’t keeping that nice lady in the video safe.
Lord, here we go again. Any criticism of foreign policy brings them out from under the rocks.
Bobby, everyone here understands perfectly why you folks get your panties twisted. Yeah, that “nice lady” (Hillary!). She did such a GREAT job as sec-state. Our foreign policy has been tip-top perfect. Let’s move on, shall we?
I would start mocking Bob-1’s party-line-ism but the monicker “Baghdad Bob” was taken about a decade ago.
What a great ad! Bob is really trying to out idiot himself today.
“Spying on me but ignoring real threats”.
The spying should be criticized but I don’t see how it can be fairly described as anything other than an attempt to deal with terrorism, a real threat, and arguably, the greatest threat that the president can do something about.
“Have you seen the news lately”
So, what is being referred to here? ISIS (see terrorism), Ukraine (a travesty, but not a likely threat to the US public), what else?
I suppose the greatest threats to the US public are cancer and heart disease, but the President isn’t being taken to task regarding those threats.
suppose the greatest threats to the US public are cancer and heart disease, but the President isn’t being taken to task regarding those threats.
Unlike national defense, that’s not part of his job description.
The ads not aimed at kool-aid drinkers, Bob. It’s aimed at women and independents.
How many “real threats” has the spying stopped or revealed? If you dig down into the data, you find nothing of substance. Certainly nothing to justify the enormous effort brought to bear. Even more certainly nothing to justify the backdoor violation of the constitutional rights of those in America.
To avoid repeating old arguments: Most criticism of the president’s foreign policy involves our geopolitical standing in the world, or, occasionally, it involves the suffering of innocents in far away lands (Syria, Iraq), or sometimes it involves the danger to US personnel in far away lands (Libya, Afghanistan). But I’ve rarely seen criticism that seriously argued that US civilians living here in the USA were actually in danger because of the President’s actions. Any I’ve seen has involved terrorism, specially terrorism from Islamic extremists, and everything I’ve heard about the domestic spying indicates that it was intended to stop terrorism on US soil.
So, I’d really like to see someone defend the idea that the President isn’t keeping that nice lady in the video safe.
How is he doing that? He doesn’t even seem to be capable of keeping the White House safe.
Do you think terrorist plots to attack Americans on American soil are being detected and stopped?
As for the White House, what should the President be doing? If Obama spent more time on his own personal security detail, you’d call him narcissistic. If he took steps to stop all possible ways to attack the White House, you’d call him imperial at best, and fascist at worst. The tradeoffs between freedom and security don’t seem to be considered if you’re making the argument “He isn’t doing enough to keep us safe”, and that’s odd, coming from you.
Do you think terrorist plots to attack Americans on American soil are being detected and stopped?
The Boston Marathon bombers weren’t. Neither was the Fort Hood massacre.
As for the White House, what should the President be doing?
He should fire people when they eff up.
So, I’d really like to see someone defend the idea that the President isn’t keeping that nice lady in the video safe.
Lord, here we go again. Any criticism of foreign policy brings them out from under the rocks.
Bobby, everyone here understands perfectly why you folks get your panties twisted. Yeah, that “nice lady” (Hillary!). She did such a GREAT job as sec-state. Our foreign policy has been tip-top perfect. Let’s move on, shall we?
I would start mocking Bob-1’s party-line-ism but the monicker “Baghdad Bob” was taken about a decade ago.
What a great ad! Bob is really trying to out idiot himself today.
Jim’s fax machine must be on the blink today.