Obama Says He Wants to Debate Civil Liberties With Romney; Here's Some Atrocious Decisions He Should Explain

During last night's campaign speech at the Ritz-Carlton in Los Angeles, President Obama said:

So on every issue domestically we’ve got differences, and I haven’t even—we haven’t talked about the fact that my opponent feels comfortable with Washington making decisions about women’s health care that women, Michelle tells me, are perfectly capable of making themselves.  (Laughter and applause.)

We haven’t talked about what's at stake with respect to the Supreme Court. We haven’t talked about what's at stake with respect to civil liberties. And obviously there's a lot at stake internationally.  And an opponent who calls me ending the war in Iraq "tragic," or suggests that somehow we should stay longer in Afghanistan has a very different world view, different perspective.

Let's put aside for a minute that Obama rejected the FDA's science-based recommendation to allow girls under the age of 17 over-the-counter access to emergency contraception; that a Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice saved Obamacare; and that Obama's "different world view" manifests in funding (and directing) a Mexican drug war that's claimed 60,000 lives, bombing an incalculable number of Muslim civilians, and lying about a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 

Let's instead just focus on this: "We haven’t talked about what's at stake with respect to civil liberties."

"If Obama wants to discuss civil liberties, he should be held accountable for the obliteration of the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments occurring under his watch, if not under his direction," writes Jesselyn Radack, National Security & Human Rights Director for the Government Accountability Project. If Radack were moderating, Obama would have to answer for his secret kill list, expanded surveillance, his assassination of American citizens, secret laws created by the PATRIOT Act, and his war on both whistleblowers and journalists.

He should also be asked to answer for at least a few of the following:

  • Why does Obama's Justice Department continue to raid medical marijuana dispensaries, and to ignore the will of voters in states where medical marijuana is legal?
  • Why has he condemned police brutality during the Arab Spring and the Iranian uprising, but failed to condemn a single act of police brutatlity in the United States, particularly the murder of Kelly Thomas and the murder-by-torture of Nick Christie?
  • Why does he allow the Department of Defense to distribute military grade weapons and equipment to local police departments?
  • Why has he done nothing to reunite the roughly 5,100 children ripped from their deported parents and placed in American foster care?
  • Why has he done nothing to curtail the frequent humiliations and abuses Americans are subjected to by the Transportation Security Administration?
  • Why has he allowed his Justice Department to defend the right of DEA agents to shackle young children at gunpoint?
  • Why did he give himself--and by extension, future presidents--the leeway necessary to indefinitely detain Americans?
  • When he reduced the sentencing disparity between cocaine and crack, why did he reduce it from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1, and not just 1-to-1?
  • Why has he commuted only one federal drug sentence in nearly four years?
  • Why has he permitted his FDA to conduct armed raids on Amish farms that sell raw milk?
  • Why did his party eliminate nearly all mentions of civil liberties from its 2012 platform, and in the process, soften the party's long-stated opposition to torture? 
  • Why has privileged the regulatory powers of the EPA over the due process rights of American citizens?

Readers: If you think of more questions, add them in the comments, and I'll add them (with credit) to this post.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Killazontherun||

    Astounding. Obama believes his record on civil liberties is unimpeachable? I'm convinced of quite the opposite.

  • rts||

    Trust me, the Obamabots are still clinging to this bit of the narrative, that Obama is a champion of civil liberties the likes of which this land has not seen.

  • Killazontherun||

    The man has a kill list produced by an unaccountable internal group, a star chamber, say, you know, like Henry the fucking VIII.

    The Obamabots don't understand what that means?

    I'm pretty sure they will when Romney continues that policy.

  • ||

    But are they bitterly clinging?

  • Mainer2||

    Come on now, everyone knows Democrats are for the little guy.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Which little guy? Peter Dinklage?

  • ||

    DON'T TALK SHIT ABOUT TYRION

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm not--I figure it's got to be one heck of a little guy for the Democrats to sacrifice an entire nation for his benefit.

  • Rasilio||

    Seriously I'd vote for him in a friggin heartbeat over either of the yahoo's we have now.

  • Ska||

    Tyrio, Peter Dinklage, whichever.

  • onelegacyfire999||

    lol I love you guys.

  • juris imprudent||

    Dammit Epi, Lannisters pay their debts. You can't expect META LUBE to support that kind of nonsense (although, the Lannisters are brutally wealthy, so there is that).

  • R C Dean||

    Which little guy?

    The little guy who pays dues to a pubsec union, that's who!

  • Specail Sauce||

    Can you imagine how bad it will be if the Rethuglicans are in charge? I mean they could possibly adopt these same policies!

  • The Hammer||

    Obama believes he is unimpeachable. There is no need to narrow it down to records on this or that.

  • sasob||

    As long as the Dems control the Senate he is unimpeachable.

  • Robert||

    He must be great on civil liberties, just look at him -- he's black!

  • Pro Libertate||

    He wants the next debate to be on affirmative action and abortion exclusively. Foreign policy and economics are barely relevant. So are most civil liberties, as Obama is indistinguishable from his predecessor.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    Dey wants to steal yo ladyparts, yo.

  • nicole||

    my opponent feels comfortable with Washington making decisions about women’s health care that women, Michelle tells me, are perfectly capable of making themselves.

    Yeah. Fuck this shit. I really wish someone could eviscerate him on the amount of bullshit implicit in this claim, but Romney mostly can't, at least not in a way that would be effective for anyone who's pro-choice, who should still think Obama is a liar on this.

  • Ted S.||

    When Gabby Douglas made the choice to eat an Egg McMuffin, Michelle Obama bullied her for it.

    Why, Mr. Obama, is your wife so desperate to make decisions for others?

  • JohnD||

    because she is a Marxist pig

  • The Hammer||

    See, now this is an apt, relevant insult for First Lady Obama. No need to call the totalitarian bitch a wookiee.

  • sasob||

    Marxist wookiee.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    my opponent feels comfortable with Washington making decisions about women’s health care that women, Michelle tells me, are perfectly capable of making themselves.

    Until the check comes, anyway.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Yeah, I'm still shocked that OBAMA said that. Does he like, not understand his own policies and positions pertaining to government inrusion on private health matters?

  • LarryA||

    It's because womyn, as Michelle tells him, will make the correct decisions, as mandated by his government health czars.

    Women who make unauthorized decisions are really men inside.

    Anyone who thinks Obamacare is going to let women make their own health decisions needs to ask a few veterans how much input they have on what they get from the VA medical system.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    You can bet the next debate moderator will make a point of cutting Romney off and letting BO break every rule in the book, to "balance" Lehrer's pussitude.

  • Killazontherun||

    Who is it suppose to be next time? I believe I heard Martha Raditz. Well, whomever it is, that is the person Romney needs to study up on, her rhetorical strength and weaknesses. Forget about studying for Obama; he is a light weight. The real threat will be the moderator.

  • DK||

    VP Debate: Martha Raddatz
    Debate II: Candy Crowley
    Debate III: Bob Schieffer

    2012 Presidential Debate Schedule

  • Killazontherun||

    Yeah, he needs to watch out for EyeCandy Crowley. Pretty sharp brain on that one.

    Scieffer can be easily rattled into getting a very off putting attitude, and then spanked.

  • Killazontherun||

    Wow. Just realized I was thinking of this correspondent:

    http://www.forumonlawculturean.....enburg.jpg

    Damn, that's a Biden level gaffe.

  • SugarFree||

    I just figured you liked meaty and not-too-bright.

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm in denial that I'm a chubby chaser. That is the real reason I puke on sight of Kim Kardashian's backside. I can't take what it does to my libido.

  • Fluffy||

    Had you not called attention to it, everyone would have assumed you were just mocking Candy(eater) Crowley.

  • Killazontherun||

    I know that, but that is just not the kind of person I am. Coming across as hyper self aware ironic is more disgusting to me than coming off as an idiot.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Seriously, I thought you were mocking her too - she is very mockable.

  • Ice Nine||

    And you can be pretty much be assured that Romney will be no more inclined to put up with it than he was with Lehrer. That bit played too well with the masses, as well as nicely serving his purpose.

  • Killazontherun||

    One of the extremely few high points of the Republican race was when George Stephanopoulos asked Romney about banning birth control and Romney treated him like a moron for bringing up leading question Kultur War bullshit.

    I expect little to like in a Romney presidency but some of these performances of his have been nothing less than Agnew level stellar.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Snufalupagus was trying to steer him into a contradiction on abortion. MR had just said he didn't believe Roe was correctly decided, that the right to privacy was invented.

    It was a legit question from GS (who is hardly the liberal patsy some here make him out to be -- watch his interview with BO on Obamacare) and an expert dodge by MR.

  • nicole||

    Yeah, it was a legit question from GS, but I thought the dodge sucked. It just made me think Romney doesn't know shit about Griswold and/or Roe.

  • Killazontherun||

    the dodge sucked

    'Contraception is working just leave it alone.' Is not suck, it's awesome because he is not interested in engaging this Kultur War dog whistle.

  • Killazontherun||

    'Contraception is working just fine leave it alone.'

  • Killazontherun||

    Your interpretation doesn't square with the video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW3B2En6xaI

    GS sticks with the 1965 decision defining a right of privacy and doesn't mention Row v. Wade.

  • nicole||

    That's the point--Romney presumably disagrees with something in Roe, and Roe was decided based on a right to privacy. That's the same basis as Griswold. Romney should have to explain why Griswold is okay but Roe is not. It's not that there aren't reasons--but I'd like to hear what they are.

  • Killazontherun||

    If that was the point, GS, would have asked directly about Rowe v. Wade. There is no point in being coy. It is possible to separate out Griswold from RvW because for nine years it did not effect abortion policy, and GS was entirely focused on that decision.

  • nicole||

    Because he thought he could get a gotcha and failed, because Mitt isn't actually against contraception. In that sense, the dodge worked.

    But it was a dodge, and I want the real fucking answer. Of course it is possible to separate Griswold from Roe, but I have little reason to believe Romney even knows that bitching about the emanations and penumbras of a right to privacy also endangers access to the Pill and condoms. I also thought it was a bullshit dodge because there are Republicans who actually believe contraception should be illegal, and Romney just wanted to pretend they don't exist (or doesn't know they do). Contraception is working just fine--yeah, go tell that to the part of your constituency busy arguing BC is an abortifacient.

  • Killazontherun||

    And it was Kultur War bullshit because those who want to make it illegal are a small minority in the Republican party. It does not even constitute a majority of socons.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "there are Republicans who actually believe contraception should be illegal"

    That really cannot be a number much above "miniscule", can it? Maybe "tiny"?

  • nicole||

    Well, on the very stage where Stephanopoulos asked this question of Mitt, there was another guy who thought Griswold was wrongly decided and states should be able to ban contraception. So, minuscule, tiny, I don't know, but it ain't nothing, and they had a fucking major candidate.

  • Killazontherun||

    Santorum who lost his senate seat by a huge margin would not have done half as well in the primary if the press didn't find his eccentric views to be good copy. And he still didn't go far.

  • Robert||

    The right of the state or federal gov't to ban the sale of contraceptive articles on health or safety (or possibly even morals) grounds is unchallenged. All Griswold decided was that the state couldn't force an inquiry into the marital status of the users as a condition of purchase.

    In turn, privacy was only one consider'n in Roe, a real mish-mosh of a decision that's remarkably devoid of legalism -- which may be considered either a bug or a feature.

  • Killazontherun||

    And frankly it is dumb of the kultur warriors who claim to hold privacy as a right to try to use it as a cynical bludgeon. What if that backfires? The heavy handed ruling of RvW got the socons in to the political arena in the first place.

  • JohnD||

    what a bunch of crap. I guess Obama has full filled your dreams?
    With a handle like yours, you might be a moron.

  • R C Dean||

    True fact: Obama got more speaking time than Romney in the first debate.

    Lehrer did exactly what he was supposed to: let the candidates show their true colors asses. The debate isn't supposed to feature the moderator, you know.

  • ||

    So on every issue domestically we’ve got differences

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • BakedPenguin||

    No, it's true. Republicans are in favor of torture. Democrats are in favor of outright murder. See? DIFFERENCE!

  • Pro Libertate||

    "I shall be merciful and quick."

  • Jordan||

    ...we haven’t talked about the fact that my opponent feels comfortable with Washington making decisions about women’s health care that women, Michelle tells me, are perfectly capable of making themselves.

    Are you fucking kidding me? This is from the guy who wants Washington making decisions about everyone's health care. What a piece of shit.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    And Washington is also totally capable of making decisions about employers' handing over $18K for their employees' birth control.

  • sarcasmic||

    Choice means abortion.

    Other things that used to be called "choices" are not choices anymore. They are made for you by your betters in government.
    But "choice" as in abortion, well that's a health care decision that should only be made by the body carrying the unwanted glob of cells.
    All other decisions are to be made by someone else.

  • nicole||

    I would respectfully suggest that pro-lifers abandon this meme. Because I think the real problem is that it's simply no longer accurate. Once, it was nasty and accurate. But now, the "making decisions about women's health" meme itself has transformed into something much more insidious.

    Choice doesn't mean abortion. It means money. Making decisions for someone means not giving them money so they can pursue their own decisions.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Many may not have grasped the implications that the left is now openly asserting reproductive choice as a positive right.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "This is from the guy who wants Washington making decisions about everyone's health care."

    How unfair of you to remember a prime aspect of the Obama administration greatest accomplishment!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Damn it. I knew I should have been faster so I could make this decision.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    And by decision I meant point. Though Reason should make the decision to add an edit button!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And an opponent who calls me ending the war in Iraq "tragic," or suggests that somehow we should stay longer in Afghanistan has a very different world view, different perspective.

    Obviously, no one at that speech is going to call him on his bullshit, but the last I looked, we're going to be in Afghanistan until 2024. Did Romney propose another 12 years on top of that when we weren't looking?

    And Obama "ending the war in Iraq" is the biggest joke of all, considering he wasn't even involved in negotating the withdrawal treaty that allowed him to do so.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Forced him to do so, actually. He wanted to stay longer.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    If only the Republicans weren't there to potentially (but not actually) filibuster, he could have stayed longer!

    ...wait, that's not right...

  • Rich||

    If you think of more questions, add them in the comments

    Would he be willing to field a few questions from Amnesty International? Why not?

  • Drake||

    Romney should accept and agree to that debate. While Obama is bragging about his civil liberties record, Romney can just point and laugh.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Well, he could point and laugh if he wasn't planning on doing everything Obama's doing.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Romney isn't pushing for an assault weapons ban or smuggling guns to Mexico to justify same.

  • BakedPenguin||

    TULPEROOOOOOOOO

  • JohnD||

    What the hell are you smoking? I think the only thing baked about you is your brain

  • BakedPenguin||

    That you, Tulpa? Either way, which of these will Romney stop?:

    ...raid medical marijuana dispensaries... Hell no.
    ...condemned police brutality during the Arab Spring and the Iranian uprising, but failed to condemn a single act of police brutatlity in the United States... Hell no.
    ...Department of Defense to distribute military grade weapons and equipment to local police departments? Hell no.
    ...reunite the roughly 5,100 children ripped from their deported parents and placed in American foster care? Hell no.
    ...curtail the frequent humiliations and abuses Americans are subjected to by the Transportation Security Administration? Hell no.
    ...the right of DEA agents to shackle young children at gunpoint? Hell no.
    ...the leeway necessary to indefinitely detain Americans? Hell no.
    ...reduced the sentencing disparity between cocaine and crack... Hell no.
    ...commuted only one federal drug sentence in nearly four years? Romney will probably have 0.
    ...he permitted his FDA to conduct armed raids on Amish farms that sell raw milk? Possible, but unlikely
    ...eliminate nearly all mentions of civil liberties from its 2012 platform...
    Why has privileged the regulatory powers of the EPA over the due process rights of American citizens? Hell no.

  • mr simple||

    How about where he thinks he gets the authority to decree as law bills he couldn't get through congress as executive orders?

  • Paul.||

    So on every issue domestically we’ve got differences, and I haven’t even—we haven’t talked about the fact that my opponent feels comfortable with Washington making decisions about women’s health care that women, Michelle tells me, are perfectly capable of making themselves. (Laughter and applause.)

    Fuck you. Fuck you with something extremely rusty and pointy.

    Let's ask Michelle about the choices that people... PEOPLE... you remember them, people who don't belong to a politically aggrieved group-- yeah, let's ask her about the choices that people writ large are capable of making themselves. Stuff in the realm of diet, exercise, healthcare. The choice to purchase or not purchase insurance. Jesus this is so fucking easy.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "We haven’t talked about what's at stake with respect to civil liberties."

    That fucking anarchist Romney will be responsible for the deaths of millions if we allow him to gut the Patriot Act as he has promised to do!

  • Killazontherun||

    Readers: If you think of more questions, add them in the comments, and I'll add them (with credit) to this post.

    Ignoring the War Powers Act.

  • Killazontherun||

    Wait. not really civil liberties except in the old fashioned Magna Charter sense.

  • Proprietist||

    Who is Bradley Manning?

    Why has Julian Assange been labelled by the State Department with the same "enemy of the state" designation reserved for al Qaeda?

  • Brian D||

    Readers: If you think of more questions, add them in the comments, and I'll add them (with credit) to this post.

    Mr. President, how many of the people you assassinated do you think knew about your Nobel Peace Prize?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    So on every issue domestically we’ve got differences, and I haven’t even—we haven’t talked about the fact that my opponent feels comfortable with Washington making decisions about women’s health care that women, Michelle tells me, are perfectly capable of making themselves.

    There must be some way to drive a (proverbial) stake through its heart.

  • Trespassers W||

    This apparent contradiction is easily resolved. There are two civil liberties: the right to a free abortion, and the right to free contraception. This follows naturally and directly from the axiom "my body, my choice".

    Wait, let me start again. There are three--THREE--civil liberties: the right to a free abortion, the right to free contraception, and the right to vote without having to show identification. This follows naturally and directly from the axiom "my body, my choice", voting being the most fundamental exercise of choice.

    Also gay marriage. So I guess that's four.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Listen voting without showing identification is a fundamental right. You wouldn't show an ID to buy cough syrup, would you?

  • Virginian||

    Seriously. I know I don't need an ID to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights at all. Not even a little bit.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    When has gun control ever been racist?

  • free2booze||

    I doubt Obama wants to have a debate on abortion. He supports third trimester abortions, and supports allowing babies who survive abortions to be allowed to die. I know these may not be controversial issues here, but to the "moderate" "independent" voter, they probably seem pretty extreme.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I know these may not be controversial issues here

    Uh... what?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Very controversial - there is a live debate over the position of abortion in the libertarian scheme. Some say that declaring a whole category of human beings outside the protection of the law is an act of arbitrary government which would make King John proud (they put a clause against arbitrary outlawry in the Magna Charta to put him in check), while there are others who think it's just a question of evicting unwanted trespassers from the women and anyway you don't want to turn the USA into Communist Rumania, do you?

    And then there are the people who roll their eyes at any discussion of this totally irrelevant and pointless issue which distracts attention from vital concerns like medical MJ and which Star Trek captain is coolest.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I don't think I've ever seen a discussion over Star Trek captains. Just agreements.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And the consensus was that Picard rules and Shattner is just a hack?

  • DANBERT8@GMAIL.COM||

    Picard - Riker 2012! Seriously I'd love to have Obama or Romney's speeches put up against a Picard speech about rights, morals, or social ethics and see how bad they get trounced by an 80s TV show.

  • Cavpitalist||

    People always forget the largest group in the pro-choice camp - those who believe in protecting life, but don't think a non-viable fetus counts.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "...my opponent feels comfortable with Washington making decisions about women’s health care..."

    "This is from the guy who wants Washington making decisions about everyone's health care."-Jordan

    I would really like to see Romney or Ryan nail Obama or Biden if they bring that crap up in the other debates. Unfortunately, conservatives only want to frame that as a religious freedom issue. While the religious angle is the most obvious constitutional objection to Obamacare's mandates, it really is an economic freedom issue. Obama does not want anybody to offer or have a level of health coverage that he does not approve of, no matter of their objections are economic or ethical.

  • Ted S.||

    In the town-hall debate, when some woman asks why Washington is "making decisions" about her health care by not funding it, I'd have another member of the audience stand up, and then have the woman use the remainder of my time to tell the second audience member why they should be forced to pay for her contraceptives.

  • LarryA||

    Much shorter answer: "Because if you buy your own contraceptive, you get to choose which one you want. If the government buys it and gives it to you, the procurement officer makes that decision."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "While the religious angle is the most obvious constitutional objection to Obamacare's mandates, it really is an economic freedom issue."

    Why not both?

    Raising the religious freedom angle is perfectly legitimate since it's actually based on a specific provision of the Constitution - the First Amendment.

    I don't think the opponents of the mandate are saying, "if only they cleared up the religious-freedom thing, I would put on pom-poms and cheer for its constitutionality." On the contrary, if you take the opponents of the mandate and the opponents of Obamacare as a whole, you are probably going to see an almost fully overlapping Venn diagram - the only parts that don't overlap being the cosmotarians who think the 10th Amendment is cool and secular while the First Amendment is religious and icky.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I don't think they'd cheer the mandates if relgious objections were cleared up, but the conservative punditry are generally only attacking as a religious issue. They are generally ignoring the idea that the government shpuld not be dictating those type of decisions for any reason, and I think are conceding the issue in that aspect.

  • ||

    If you drone kill someone and he still has a legal job in America at the time of his death, does this count as a job created or is that double counting?

  • Raven Nation||

    I think it's a net one job saved. Two drone operators minus one American job killed.

  • free2booze||

    No, but it would reduce the participation rate, which would help lower unemployment.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    And free up the job for another American! Win win.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    So Obama wants to debate civil liberties, eh?

    That's because he DOESN'T want to debate the economony or his foreign polciy scew ups and his attempted Libya coverup.

  • DK||

    If you think of more questions, add them in the comments, and I'll add them (with credit) to this post.

    They should dedicate an entire debate to the Bill of Rights.

    1st Amendment: H.R. 347 (anti-protest bill)
    2nd Amendment: Fast and Furious
    3rd Amendment: I think both candidates can proudly proclaim staunch support for this one
    4th Amendment: GPS tracking by police
    5th Amendment: Eminent domain abuses (Clearwater Dam, Keystone Pipeline)
    6th Amendment: NDAA, Bradley Manning
    7th Amendment: Can't think of any
    8th Amendment: Torture vs. assassination of US Citizens
    9th/10th Amendment: Extra-constitutional agencies (EPA, FDA, TSA, etc.) - insert your own abuse here...

  • Pudgeboy||

    Not allowing girls under 17 to get 'emergency contraception' over the counter is hardly a serious 'civil rights' issue, regardless of what the FDA calls science.

  • nicole||

    But it is an instance of him contradicting himself, i.e., the government making decisions about health care.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The government making decisions about women's healthcare. Cause fuck men. They don't get to choose on their healthcare.

  • nicole||

    Don't worry, neither do women. They just like to pretend we do.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm aware. Just pointing out that they are careful with the wording.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Romney should kill two birds with one stone by promising to enact an Emancipation Proclamation in Afghanistan. Free all the Taliban's women and send them to America, give 'em 40 acres and a mule, whatever.

    Works by
    1) Reminding people that it was Republicans that freed the slaves. Romney's just making a return to form.
    2) Reminding people that Femocrat issues in the U.S. are fucking petty and retarded, relatively speaking
    3) Doing something far awesomer for Vagina-Humans than Obama.
    4) Wreaking demographic hell on the Taliban, to the extent the policy is successful. They might be a pain for another generation, but no more.
    5) Plus, guys should be considering the influx of newly single women onto the market.

  • Robert||

    Two birds? This fuckin' brilliant idea would kill an aviary full of 'em! Win-win-win-win-win.

  • Ted Levy||

    Why has he lied about the Citizen United decision and vilified people who seek to express themselves politically while using the corporate form even as he shows no qualms, and much effort, at raising the most money in history for his re-election bid by taking advantage of the CU decision?

  • cmcagle||

    Mr. President, when you signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, you said, "I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation." You further indicated that you signed the NDAA with the intent to circumvent the objectionable portions of the law, and issued an executive order to that effect.

    Why, then, did your administration appeal Judge Katherine Forrest's ruling that the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA are unconstitutional?

  • nero||

    Why has he softened his stance that his religion forced him to oppose gay marriage to now thinking states "should allow" gays to marry? He'd certainly oppose state interference in hetero marriage and it is up to states to recognize equal protection/treatment under the law - that's covered under the 14th Amendment (although it's implied in the Constitution as well).

  • Robert||

    Romney should just not show up for the debates, and let Obama have the whole time to bury himself. Nobody is making up his mind to vote based on what Obama's opponent (whoever that may be or may have been) says, just on their opinion of Obama.

  • Jen Gratz||

    Why does he support group rights and discrimination in the form of race preferences vs. equality and individual rights?

  • Kelly James||

    How can he justify HR347, which makes free speech a felony in the presence of secret service agents?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Ask him if he supports a Constitutional Amendment abridging corporate rights to political speech. If he says yes, list off some news corps (and their evil megacorporate backers like GE) and some political corporations like the Sierra Club and the ACLU and ask why he would censor the press and make it harder for activists to participate in politics. If he claims that Congress could carve out exemptions for certain groups, ask him if he thinks having groups get permission from the government to be involved in politics is in the spirit of the first amendment.

    Ask him why he believes that those who slander Muhammad have no future. What will happen to Americans who don't believe in Muhammad's connection to the divine in Obama's future if they speak of that belief openly (which would certainly constitute a far worse slander to a Muslim than insulting Muhammad as a person)? Can we expect the government to protect Americans who say unpopular or offensive words against those that would take away their rights? If not, what is the purpose of the United States government?

  • Mensan||

    "...we haven’t talked about the fact that my opponent feels comfortable with Washington making decisions about women’s health care that women ... are perfectly capable of making themselves."

    Cognitive dissonance in:

    5...

    4...

    3...

    2...

    1...

    ummm, 0?

    -1?

    -2?

    Nothing? Seriously?

  • Curiouser George||

    Why has the Obama administration been trying to make it difficult for citizens to use the Freedom of Information Act? http://www.politico.com/news/s.....Page2.html

    Why did Obama act to keep a Yemeni journalist in jail there? (It appears he was writing articles that made the US uncomfortable.) http://www.thenation.com/artic.....ison-yemen

  • Curiouser George||

    Why has Obama invoked the state secrets privilege to deny torture victims their day in court? http://www.aclu.org/national-s.....taplan-inc

    Why has the Obama administration's Justice Department asserted that the FBI can obtain telephone records of international calls made from the U.S. without any formal legal process or court oversight? http://www.mcclatchydc.com/201.....rylink=cpy

  • Curiouser George||

    Why is Obama going after reporters and government employees who were whistle blowers? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04.....ml?src=twr (James Risen) http://www.democracynow.org/20.....ckdown_nsa (Thomas Drake)

  • ||

    It's not that hard. They make him look bad.

  • Curiouser George||

    Why did Obama personally kill Senate Democratic attempts to try to pass immigration reform in the spring of 2010? http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01389.html

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    Liberal/Progressives just love cradle to grave entitlements, it's getting to the cradle that's the tough part. -Ann Coulter

  • allforthemusic||

    I know it's been said here already, but it hasn't been said enough.

    Legalizing INDEFINITE DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL of American Citizens through NDAA

    http://belligerentact.org/

  • Shahid Buttar||

    Even this list barely scratches the surface, though of course Romney's no better. If you KNOW the mainstream press is ignoring issues of grave concern to our nation, look for news analysis beyond the headlines -- and action opportunities -- from the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement