Have We "Lost" Freedoms Since Obama Has Taken Office

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
ITN asked me to start a thread on the subject so here it is.

What makes this the funniest thing ever is the hard right doesn't seem to mind losing "freedoms" when it makes them "safer".

Go ahead ITN. Make your ridiculous claims about the freedom's you've lost, are about to lose, and Obama's assault on the Constitution.

This'll be comedy gold I'm sure. ;)
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
How fortuitous. I just got off the phone with Quinnipiac Polls; a nice long 25 minute survey. They happened to ask about whether or not we have lost any freedoms under the current and former Presidents.

Was also asked about Democratic and Republicans parties, the House, Pelosi, Boehner, Senate, Reid, McConnell, Obama, Palin, Tea Party, health care, deficit reduction, Afghanistan and terrorism.
 

renewed

macrumors 68040
Mar 24, 2009
3,064
5
Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
ITN asked me to start a thread on the subject so here it is.

What makes this the funniest thing ever is the hard right doesn't seem to mind losing "freedoms" when it makes them "safer".

Go ahead ITN. Make your ridiculous claims about the freedom's you've lost, are about to lose, and Obama's assault on the Constitution.

This'll be comedy gold I'm sure. ;)
Instantly Bannable Offenses
These can be one-time bannable offenses for which you will not get a warning.

Insults. Direct personal insult of another member, i.e., "You are an idiot." and all the variations. Why? Because this isn't grade school. People should be able to discuss or even dispute other's posts without insulting people. And the only purpose of a post like this is to incite other people. You may dispute somebody's opinion, but not attack/flame the person who stated it. There are a lot of other non-direct-personal insults that won't necessary get you banned instantly, but depending on the context/nature may lead to post editing, post deletion, warnings, or time-outs. They include telling people to shut up, or being extremely or repeatedly rude or sarcastic. Bottom line -- don't try to tick off others.
I'm assuming this doesn't apply here anymore.
 

Gelfin

macrumors 68020
Sep 18, 2001
2,166
4
Denver, CO
I'm assuming this doesn't apply here anymore.
It does, but although the OPs tone was pretty caustic in the post you cite, there was no direct personal insult. He called the claim ridiculous. If you think the claim has merit, defend it and prove him wrong.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
edit: ^What an intelligent point you make ;).

I'm assuming this doesn't apply here anymore.
I would have thought there is quite a difference between a personal attack i.e. calling inthenet ridiculous, and calling claims ridiculous.

That said the OP is a tad baiting and aggressive in my opinion. Could be toned down and not be directed at anyone in particular and we might get some better discussion.
 

renewed

macrumors 68040
Mar 24, 2009
3,064
5
Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
It does, but although the OPs tone was pretty caustic in the post you cite, there was no direct personal insult. He called the claim ridiculous. If you think the claim has merit, defend it and prove him wrong.
^What an intelligent point you make ;).


I would have thought there is quite a difference between a personal attack i.e. calling inthenet ridiculous, and calling claims ridiculous.

That said the OP is a tad baiting and aggressive in my opinion. Could be toned down and not be directed at anyone in particular and we might get some better discussion.
Just seems baited (as .Andy said) to me. Doesn't seem like much of a thread, other than trying to provoke a particular user. If ITN had claimed in another thread that we have lost freedoms under Obama then why doesn't the OP counter that claim in that thread?

Why start another thread, calling out one user, and not even back your stance with a claim or facts?
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
If ITN had claimed in another thread that we have lost freedoms under Obama then why doesn't the OP counter that claim in that thread?

Why start another thread, calling out one user, and not even back your stance with a claim or facts?
It was actually done at inthenet's request.

inthenet said:
I disagree [that the american public haven't lost freedom under obama] but am unwilling to hijack this thread for a discussion on Obama's assault on the U.S. Constitution. Care to discuss it start a thread specifically on it. For now let's stay topical to thread issue
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
Just seems baited (as .Andy said) to me. Doesn't seem like much of a thread, other than trying to provoke a particular user. If ITN had claimed in another thread that we have lost freedoms under Obama then why doesn't the OP counter that claim in that thread?

Why start another thread, calling out one user, and not even back your stance with a claim or facts?
Stick around and it will become quite clear.

ITN claims we have lost freedoms under Obama in a post. When asked to name them, he tells you it's not on topic for that thread. :rolleyes:

Thus, you have this thread.

EDIT: I'll be awaiting the diatribe on his 'assault on the constitution'.
 

renewed

macrumors 68040
Mar 24, 2009
3,064
5
Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
It was actually done at inthenet's request.
Stick around and it will become quite clear.

ITN claims we have lost freedoms under Obama in a post. When asked to name them, he tells you it's not on topic for that thread. :rolleyes:

Thus, you have this thread.

EDIT: I'll be awaiting the diatribe on his 'assault on the constitution'.
I see... alright well back on thread topic. Proceed. :p
 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,466
3,830
Space--The ONLY Frontier
I have one.

I have lost the freedom to go to a rally in Washington D.C and not see a bunch of crazies yielding guns.

There. That should start this one going eh ? :D
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
.Andy said:
That said the OP is a tad baiting and aggressive in my opinion. Could be toned down and not be directed at anyone in particular and we might get some better discussion.
It is not bobber205's fault here; mine entirely. I did not want to hijack other thread with side discussion on Obama's rush to deny rights... I probably should have prefaced that request...

...Obama's assault on the Constitution...
Here's a few... I'll add more later... this is my opinion in response to your request:

1. Freedom from Debt. (denial underway) - Obama has continued the prior president's reckless assault to extend public debt (now:$12,640,950,801,103.62) and indenture the next generation to debt servitude. "The estimated population of the United States is now 308,020,639, so each citizen's servitude share of this debt is $41,039.30."

2. Freedom to Question my Government. (denial underway) - Obama has urged his surrogates to refer to legal protests, within Tea Party gatherings, as "angry mobs" with full castigation from the White House Press Secretary and demeaned and belittled any public sentiment against the administration.

3. Freedom of Religious Rights of doctors/health care providers to refuse to perform abortions (denial in progress). - Obama seeks to rescind the "conscience rule" protecting doctors/health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other medical procedures that go against their moral and religious beliefs.

4. Freedom of Review. (denial in progress) - Obama has denied Congressional review of close Presidential appointments; specifically he has perverted the appointment of White House czars without Congressional oversight (more than 50 now not subject to any Congressional oversight,). “As Presidential assistants and advisors, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the President. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.” (Democrat Senator Robert Byrd on presidential czars).

5. Freedom of Speech (various entities impacted underway) - Obama's Justice Department issuance of gag order on health insurance providers (Humana Health Insurance, et al.) to detail insurance provision information.

6.Freedom to Work (denial in progress) - The U.S. has lost between 2.5 to 4.1 million jobs since President Barack Obama took office.

7. Freedom of Information (denial in progress) - despite making a claim to make government more open and transparent, Obama has refused to run an open government. "In fiscal year 2009, 17 major governmental agencies refused to release information, claiming legal exemptions, 466,872 times, an increase of nearly 50 percent from the previous year, according to a review of requests conducted by the Associated Press."

8. Freedom from Fear (denial in progress) - despite coming to office with Homeland Security apparatus in place to fight the War on Terror, Obama has endangered Americans by mirandizing fanatical Muslim terrorists, threatened to close Guantanamo Detention Facility and bring foreign terrorists to this nation to threaten citizens, rolled back European missile defense, and curtailed key defense programs that provide national security.
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,762
totally cool
That said the OP is a tad baiting and aggressive in my opinion. Could be toned down and not be directed at anyone in particular and we might get some better discussion.
A tad? It is baiting. @bobber205 Why start a thread in this manner? Instead of taunting, pose a serious question.


Anyway, could massive debt be considered a loss of freedom?
Otherwise I don't feel any different.
 

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
A tad? It is baiting. @bobber205 Why start a thread in this manner? Instead of taunting, pose a serious question.


Anyway, could massive debt be considered a loss of freedom?
Otherwise I don't feel any different.
I've started a thread on this matter in the way I did because ITN is always telling us to do it so he won't "go off topic", though he loves doing that when it's done by his own hand.

I am happy that he at least responded. Though none of the things he claimed are losses of "Freedom". He said assault on the Constitution but none of them seem like that kind of attack. More like stuff he doesn't like that's happened.