The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

That is certianly unfortunate. I read the interview and did find parts of it disturbing.

I think it is the right of anyone practicing any religion to attempt to convert anyone they wish. Unless, of course, it involves killing those who won't.

That's far from the most disturbing part. The most disturbing part is that he is equating a Muslim practicing medicine as a licensed surgeon with attempts to convert and murderous extremism.

[scaeagles]

On re-read I see how you could view it that way, but his answer seems to ignore the "so". I see a disconnect in his answer from relating it to the preface of the question (involving his surgeon) and going straight to how he views Islam in American society in general.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Betty

Sort of like Christian politicians inserting thier relgious into our government? I guess he doesn't want the competition.

That's exactly what I was thinking!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

On re-read I see how you could view it that way, but his answer seems to ignore the "so". I see a disconnect in his answer from relating it to the preface of the question (involving his surgeon) and going straight to how he views Islam in American society in general.

Except his answer perfectly explains his reason for being uneasy about a surgeon with a Muslim-sounding name. He thinks they are all out to either convert or murder him, and therefore should be avoided, pushed back against, and rejected. I see no disconnect between his answer and why he would have had a problem with a surgeon named Abdallah.

[scaeagles]

So how ya'll feeling about the reauthorization of the Patriot Act for 4 more years?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So how ya'll feeling about the reauthorization of the Patriot Act for 4 more years?

Betrayed.

[Ghoulish Delight]

This may or may not be the most disturbing part:

With Obama in France, the White House said the president used an autopen machine that holds a pen and signs his actual signature. It is only used with proper authorization of the president.

What? Seriously?

[Alex]

While I have significant issues with the Patriot Act as a whole, the whole was not at issue here.

So of the things extended:

- Roving wire taps. While I recognize the gray areas, ultimately I come down on the side of supporting them. Again, I see the potential dangers of it, but at the moment I am ok with it proceeding.
- The business records section. I have issues with the existence of the FISA court but its existence is not at issue here. My main beef with this part of the Patriot Act is the gag rule it places on the people served with an information request. As long as that is in there I oppose any extension or expansion.
- The lone wolf stuff, if I understand it correctly (and I'm not sure I do) doesn't establish the surveillance abilities it just extends the duration that can be authorized by the FISA court. If my understanding is correct then that seems a wash to me in the "we've establish what you are, we're just haggling over price" vein.

So, as a president presented with having to take all three or getting none, I'm not sure where I would fall. Especially since it isn't like he was presented with time to veto and have Congress come back with something better before "none at all" was forced on him.

As for whether this is a betrayal. He voted for extend the last time it was up. And I don't think he has ever spoken against these provisions (though he has spoken out against the Patriot Act as a whole, but again that wasn't what he's signing), so I'm not sure why it would be a surprise.

[Alex]

As for the autopen thing, I'm not bothered by it absent any indication that the president did not authorize its use. But it may be of interest (but probably not, though 12 pages in I'm finding it surprisingly so) that the White House Office of Legal Counsel issued a report on the issue in 2005, finding that it does meet constitutional requirements for the president to authorize a subordinate to affix his signature, not to delegate the decision).

http://www.justice.gov/olc/2005/opinion_07072005.pdf

Oh, and to answer the original question on how I feel. I feel like the president may have made a deicision with which I disagree. I also feel that presidents do that all the time and so long as I don't feel the president is acting in bad faith, I don't hold it against him. I felt the same when the Patriot Act was first passed. I disagreed with it then, but I didn't think it evil. Some of the ways it was used later, however, changed that.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I have some issues with the Patriot act, but I'm glad it has an expiration date that it has to be renewed. I think most laws should have expiration dates.