[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Does it matter how fast its done? No, it just matters that its done. And please, can you give a more specific example of Obama directly breaking the law?

I stated in my arguments that Pres. Obama hasn't directly broken the law. We've already discussed that point. He's violated the intent, and used money to do so. Thats what I mean when I say "constitutional end around". The best the law could do would be to declare some of his actions as being unconstitutional (violation of the 10th amendment) by bringing the cases to the supreme court, but his actions are not directly against the law as there is no legal precedent. As a former constitutional lawyer, Pres. Obama should know better, but unfortunately he appears to be using his knowledge of the Constitution to work against it.

The problem started with the government borrowing money from people who are not in the governement. That is what should have been made illegal to start. when money is taken, all of a sudden whoever loaned it gains influence over the government's decisions. And this is an issue that's not new, nor created by Obama.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Can you explain further?

I disagree completly. The Iraq war was started because of "evidence" that was gained by torchure..

I don't remember that ever happening. I know we used water boarding to get information to use in Afghanistan and after we went to Iraq, but I don't that being the reason for the invasion. I think 9/11 was the obvious reason, and the terrorists weren't exactly hiding where they were.

Evidence that was obviously a lie.

No, the information gained from the interrogations actually proved to be quite useful. Most people in the CIA actually claim is saved many lives in the field. It was also only used on 3 people, all non-citizens and un-uniformed combatants. You are confusing the evidence that led to the Iraq war with the information gained by interrogation for use IN the war. And please don't call it torture. Water boarding instills panic, but does not cause pain or mutilation. If you must, call it "illegal" interrogation, but to call water boarding torture cheapens the word.

How many lives did that cost alone? How bad did that mess up america's reputation? And how much money did that cost? I mean, are you fucking kidding me?

If we want to get into arguments about numbers dying we can, but I don't remember this being the basis of the argument at hand. People die in war and the results of the interrogations didn't get us into the war. This is irrelevant to our argument, and we've already argued Iraq to death. Lets keep on point.

The patriot act is just a small thing in comparision to water boarding.

There is NO comparision whatsoever between what Bush has done to this country and what Obama is doing so far. Bush has done FAR worse. Obama is is not destroying our reputation and unnessicarily killing thousands of people.

Not constitutionally, and thats what we're talking about here: The executive branch stealing power from the states and other branches on a large scale. I didn't want to bring scope into the argument, but you did when you started splitting hairs with percentages and the like when discussing the stimulus money in California, so as I stated before I argued this point on your terms. In terms of scope of bending the constitution, Pres. Obama's actions have been far more vast, and impact all Americans and not a select few.

The power has been being taken from us slowly over the last 100 years. It just goes back what I first said.. The government has allowed money from other souces to influence us. You can make Obama the face of it all you want, but this is not a new issue, and he's not doing anything anyone else couldn't have and wouldn't have done.

And once again how does repeating the mistakes of others, but on a grander scale, make them suddenly acceptable? Doing more wrong makes it right? We're beginning to go in circles here, and much of the argument has gone off point, and horribly so as much of what you stated as your arguments for the evidence for Iraq are factually incorrect.

At this point I'm willing to let our arguments stand, unless you have something new to add (my first question).