I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.
What's wrong with all of you!!! Does anyone actually know what communism is?????? Obama is not even a liberal, he's a moderate. A goddamn moderate!!!!! I would like him soooooooo much more if he was actually a liberal.
Here you go NeoSupaMario
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
However, Obama have pushed for different types of legislation that might be seen as communist.
Look up the Cybersecurity act, that would give the white house total control over the american internet.
Look up the NDAA bill, that allows the President to order the assasination of a U.S citizen WITHOUT trial.
It's these kinds of wack-o things that make me dislike obama.
P.S. Thanks for the backup, Libertarian94
Protip: The president didn't propose these laws. The REPUBLICAN Congress did. Although, the blame isn't totally theirs--because the Democrats also voted for these two types of laws.
The government, that is, Congress, wants control. Not the president. In fact, Obama did something fairly clever with the NDAA bill:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/03/1070450/--Obama-just-Vetoed-Indefinite-Military-Detention-in-NDAA?via=siderec
Excellent insight into why this move was smart from a commenter on reddit:
"Great. Obama resisted using a pointless veto which would have been overturned by Congress anyways and would have led to him being attacked for vetoing money to the troops.
Instead he used the threat of the veto to gut the bill of some of its worst provisions while also insuring that he would have greater leeway in enforcing other troubling provisions. Then he used this leeway to effectively nullify the troubling riders to the budget.
He has basically avoiding a needless political hissy fit over the defense budget while outmaneuvering Congress and defusing a policy bomb set by Republicans. This is why this man is president and the armchair politicians on Reddit are not.
EDIT: A post from Lawfare Blog on the matter: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/02/initial-comments-on-the-implementing-procedures-for-ndaa-section-1022/
Second EDIT:
The way I see it the president had 3 main options:
1) Veto the original bill. This would have led to a political pissing match over the defense budget and Congress would have likely overturned the veto and we would be stuck with a much worse bill. At best Obama would be able to negotiate a better version of the bill (which is what he actually did by threatening to veto.)
2) After winning his concessions he could have still vetoed the bill. This would understandably upset Congress and lead to a political bitch-fit and Congress may be so upset that they refuse to negotiate anymore and simply pass the original bill. At best Obama would have his concessions and a bill passed over his veto and would have weathered a needless political fight while damaging any remaining trust between the legislature and the executive.
3) What he did in actuality was win his concessions through the veto threat and then signed the bill with a signing statement. He then used the leeway in the bill to nullify many of the remaining trouble spots with minimal political fighting.
Basically the political system is pretty messed up but I believe Obama made the right decisions to ultimately prevent the worst riders to the budget being implented without a pointless political furor.
I know that some will say that even a symbolic veto would have been nice and that Obama should have done that. However as I implied in my second edit, I believe that a symbolic veto, although pleasing to many, would have quite likely done damage to the interest of improving actual policy."
