Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Yes, but that doesn't illustrate my point in the least. Call it creative reinterpretation for the sake of illustration.
And why was his faith compromised? Two reasons:
1) Anger that god would allow such a thing and
2) Anger at himself for participating.
A compromise in which freedoms provided in the Bill of Rights are lost is not something a good leader or even a good person would be willing to do. The idea that somehow it's okay because he got to add his asterisk is ludicrous. His name appears on a document that allows abuse of power. It's not more complex than that.
I'm not making vague references, though. The document in full is available online. In 2003, Barak Obama specifically said that he would support a repeal of the Patriot Act, and then in 2006 he voted to extend it because they allowed him to make very minor changes. The document he signed still takes away liberties.
Look at how he's formulated strategies about other things, such as Iraq, and you see a man unwilling to compromise his values and the safety and rights of the people. He supports withdrawal from Iraq, which is not a compromise at all, but in fact is a move that is beneficial to all Americans (except a few dozen really rich ones) and that is not a compromise with the madmen that would continue the war indefinitely. That's the kind of leadership it takes to be president, and putting his Iraq policy next to his Patriot Act policy shows one thing: inconsistency.
|
willravel, please watch this short clip, especially Sen. Feingold's comments near the end.... I was not impressed with his impartiality, or his denials, and he was the one who pointed out that he serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee. If he is the best we have, the most open minded, I think that we are screwed....
Links to back up the things the man in the video said to Sen. Feingold:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=103028
The one Israeli killed at the WTC was a passenger on a hikjacked airliner:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/mem...try/page9.html
The US State Dept. worked OT to debunk "slander" against Israel....why?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...le+Search&aq=f
A NOTE TO THOSE SYMPATHETIC TO FEINGOLD's REACTION IN THE VIDEO? WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST AN AMERICANcentric, examination of the facts?
How could Feingold serve on the SSCI and claim that the presenter's information was new to him? It certainly wasn't "new" to the State Dept. !
Is Feingold representing Israel in the US Senate, or the people of the US state of Wisconsin? Forgive, me, I couldn't tell, for sure....sheesh, another politician I thought I could support, and now, I am not so certain....
A NOTE TO THOSE SYMPATHETIC TO FEINGOLD's REACTION IN THE VIDEO? WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST AN AMERICANcentric, examination of the facts?