PDA

View Full Version : Obama Rachel Madcow is, well, mad...at Obummer.


memyselfI
05-24-2009, 10:15 PM
Finally, Libs are starting to wake the fugg up. Not on this board, of course, but in the real world.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1uuWVHT1WUY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1uuWVHT1WUY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

StcChief
05-24-2009, 10:27 PM
Obummer is in over his head....slow but sure failing.
Where the Bush blame game? you can always back track to that instead of leading.....

KILLER_CLOWN
05-24-2009, 10:30 PM
I'm so happy we have change we can believe in.

blaise
05-24-2009, 11:36 PM
"Come on man, I was saying all that stuff to get elected."

- Barry

banyon
05-24-2009, 11:40 PM
For my part, I've been pretty critical of most of his major policy moves. He was dealt a poor hand, but I don't like the choices and people he's cozied up to so far to try to get out of it. He's got time to redeem himself in my eyes, but he's got to work himself back.

stevieray
05-24-2009, 11:54 PM
It's getting harder and harder to watch him. He's starting to remind me of the Animotronic Presidents at Disneyland...the constant 3/4 view as his head swivels back and forth from the teleprompters, iterating the neverendingcampaignspeech...which enables him to never look straight at the camera..it almost seems disengenuous.

jAZ
05-24-2009, 11:56 PM
Finally, Libs are starting to wake the fugg up. Not on this board, of course, but in the real world.
I thought...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=198017&highlight=libs+obama

Not even six weeks after the election and already Liberals are feeling screwed. The guy hasn't taken office yet and already his base is crumbling???

ROFL

blaise
05-25-2009, 12:00 AM
I thought it was telling when he was talking about housing prisoners here and he said nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal supermax prisons. There is only one of them. It made me think he really hasn't thought through the issue that well. If it was something he'd discussed in concrete terms you'd think he would know that. Maybe he just misspoke but it seemed more to me that someone fed him a line on something he really knew very little about.

Ultra Peanut
05-25-2009, 06:37 AM
Obama is shit, America is fucked, the end.

memyselfI
05-25-2009, 08:07 AM
For my part, I've been pretty critical of most of his major policy moves. He was dealt a poor hand, but I don't like the choices and people he's cozied up to so far to try to get out of it. He's got time to redeem himself in my eyes, but he's got to work himself back.


ROFL

It's Bush's fault that Obummer lied about what he'd do when he got to office.

memyselfI
05-25-2009, 08:08 AM
I thought...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=198017&highlight=libs+obama

You are right. I digress. It will take some idiot Obots WAAAAAAY longer.

Most libs don't want to admit they've been had the same way conservatives were by Bush. They so enjoyed pointing and laughing at what fools they were.

Easy 6
05-25-2009, 08:20 AM
The very first time i saw Rachel Maddow, i could only snicker at the thought that it was Keith Berman in drag.

Ultra Peanut
05-25-2009, 08:52 AM
I would flip mode for Maddow in a heartbeat.

banyon
05-25-2009, 09:02 AM
ROFL

It's Bush's fault that Obummer lied about what he'd do when he got to office.

What "lie" are you referring to in connection with a major policy initiative to date?

memyselfI
05-25-2009, 09:10 AM
What "lie" are you referring to in connection with a major policy initiative to date?

You said 'major policy initiative.' I didn't.

jAZ
05-25-2009, 10:25 AM
I thought it was telling when he was talking about housing prisoners here and he said nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal supermax prisons. There is only one of them. It made me think he really hasn't thought through the issue that well. If it was something he'd discussed in concrete terms you'd think he would know that. Maybe he just misspoke but it seemed more to me that someone fed him a line on something he really knew very little about.

Maybe you should think through these things before you speak in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax#Prisons_with_supermax_facilities

Prisons with supermax facilities

[edit] United States
Most of these facilities only contain supermax wings or sections, with other parts of the facility under lesser security measures.

U.S. Penitentiary Florence ADMAX (Administrative Maximum) Facility - Florence, Colorado (entirely Supermax)
United States Penitentiary - Marion, Illinois (Downgraded to a medium-security facility in September 2006)[citation needed]
Alcatraz Island - San Francisco, California (Closed March 21, 1962)
USP Tucson - Tucson, Arizona
Holman Correctional Facility - Atmore, Alabama
ASPC-Eyman, SMU II - Florence, Arizona
Varner Supermax - Grady, Arkansas
Pelican Bay State Prison - Crescent City, California
California State Prison, Corcoran - Corcoran, California
United States Penitentiary - Atwater, California
United States Penitentiary - Coleman, Florida
United States Penitentiary - Atlanta, Georgia
Tamms Correctional Center - Tamms, Illinois
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, SHU - Carlisle, Indiana
Westville Correctional Facility, WCU - Westville, Indiana
United States Penitentiary - Terre Haute, Indiana
United States Penitentiary - Leavenworth, Kansas (being downgraded to medium security)
United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (military prison)
Maine State Prison - Warren, Maine
Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center - Baltimore, Maryland
Minnesota Correctional Facility - Oak Park Heights - Stillwater, Minnesota
Mississippi State Penitentiary - Parchman, Mississippi
Northern Correctional Institution - Somers, Connecticut
Florida State Prison - Raiford, Florida
United States Penitentiary - Allenwood, Pennsylvania
Sing Sing Correctional Facility - Ossining, New York
Ohio State Penitentiary - Youngstown, Ohio
Idaho Maximum Security Institution - Boise, Idaho
Oklahoma State Penitentiary - McAlester, Oklahoma
United States Penitentiary - Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
Riverbend Maximum Security Institution - Nashville, Tennessee
Polunsky Unit - Livingston, Texas
United States Penitentiary - Beaumont, Texas
Utah State Prison - Draper, Utah
Wallens Ridge State Prison - Big Stone Gap, Virginia
Red Onion State Prison - Pound, Virginia
Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility - Ionia, Michigan
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex - Fayette County, West Virginia
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility - Boscobel, Wisconsin
North Branch Correctional Institution - Cumberland, Maryland (final housing unit will begin operation in summer of 2008)
New Hampshire State Prison - Men - Concord, New Hampshire
Massachusetts Correctional Institution - Cedar Junction - Walpole, Massachusetts
Attica Correctional Facility - Attica, New York
Upstate Correctional Facility - Malone, New York

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 10:40 AM
Finally, Libs are starting to wake the fugg up. Not on this board, of course, but in the real world.
I'm sorry for you that Hillary is not the President but you need to move on.

This is a Bush created problem. He faced the same issues Obama does right now. But, he punted the ball down the road and built Gitmo, instead of coming up with a plan to deal with these scumbags. Now its a symbol and recruiting tool for our enemies.


I'm also not very damn happy about this either. But, my ideals and principles like holding people against their will without charges or having their day in court is facing a real world problem. Do I release my enemy to possible kill again because the cops/military screwed up the arrest or tortured the person?

As far as the prisoners that can't be tried in a U.S. court, can't be tried in a U.S. military court because of admissable evidence issues and can't be released because there is no doubt they will try to kill Americans again, what would you do with them?

stevieray
05-25-2009, 10:46 AM
I'm sorry for you that Hillary is not the President but you need to move on.


. ..do you honestly think repeating this over and over really means anything?

if anything, you're the one who can't let go of Hillary.

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 10:49 AM
. ..do you honestly think repeating this over and over really means anything?

if anything, you're the one who can't let go of Hillary.
Answer the question. What would you do with those terriosts?

petegz28
05-25-2009, 11:03 AM
I'm sorry for you that Hillary is not the President but you need to move on.

This is a Bush created problem. He faced the same issues Obama does right now. But, he punted the ball down the road and built Gitmo, instead of coming up with a plan to deal with these scumbags. Now its a symbol and recruiting tool for our enemies.


I'm also not very damn happy about this either. But, my ideals and principles like holding people against their will without charges or having their day in court is facing a real world problem. Do I release my enemy to possible kill again because the cops/military screwed up the arrest or tortured the person?

As far as the prisoners that can't be tried in a U.S. court, can't be tried in a U.S. military court because of admissable evidence issues and can't be released because there is no doubt they will try to kill Americans again, what would you do with them?


I think the basis of your problem is you are trying to fight a war like it was a common criminal offense.

banyon
05-25-2009, 11:06 AM
You said 'major policy initiative.' I didn't.

Well, I know you're just here to nitpick, but I'm not, so that's why I said "major". I'll assume by your reply that you can't provide any and were just exaggerating as usual.

PunkinDrublic
05-25-2009, 11:32 AM
Bravo deneocon maybe you're waking up and beginning to realize that somebody who votes and supported obama isn't automatically an o-bot.

Ultra Peanut
05-25-2009, 11:39 AM
Bravo deneocon maybe you're waking up and beginning to realize that somebody who votes and supported obama isn't automatically an o-bot.hi5 for awesome nickname

SBK
05-25-2009, 11:41 AM
JaZ is Pelosi's top supporter, so I think it's safe to say Obama could beat his son and he'd still support him.

And the quote about libs being had by Lord Barry the same way conservatives were had by Bush is pretty good.
Posted via Mobile Device

PunkinDrublic
05-25-2009, 11:43 AM
hi5 for awesome nickname

Well I was going to go call her denise coulter but I didn't want to insult the transgendered.

penchief
05-25-2009, 11:43 AM
Finally, Libs are starting to wake the fugg up. Not on this board, of course, but in the real world.

Apparently you haven't watched Rachael Maddow a whole lot prior to now. She's been a straight shooter since her first show. She's always displayed a fair amount of skepticism and she hasn't hesitated to call Obama or the democrats out when she felt they were not being true.

As far as the rest of us go, I'm not happy with the backtracking but that doesn't mean I'm ready to give up hope. Dude has only been in office for five months. The full weight of the status quo opposes his spoken agenda. He's not going to get anything done without securing some cooperation from that entity. It's not like he can snap his fingers and just make the nightmare go away.

Turning this country around is akin to turning around an ocean liner. You can't turn on a dime. You need a wide berth and it's going to take some time to slow down before you can actually get going in the other direction.

Unfortunately, some of the policies of the previous administration have created entanglements that require deft and nuance, as well as the cooperation of the status quo, to ensure that we disentangle ourselves safely and securely. Unfortunately, Obama is operating within a mine field left behind by the treachery of the previous administration.

That said, don't for one second think I'm happy about the flip flops because I'm not. But, I still think that the ship is slowly being turned around and that those ultimate goals will eventually be served once the mine field is cleared and the status quo has been tamed. Only time will tell, though. Anyone who says they have all the answers now is just talking shit, IMO.

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 11:51 AM
Answer the question. What would you do with those terriosts?
Still waiting? No one? Bueller...Bueller...

KILLER_CLOWN
05-25-2009, 12:07 PM
Answer the question. What would you do with those terriosts?

1st of all give them a trial to you know actually make sure they are guilty?

Ultra Peanut
05-25-2009, 12:18 PM
Well I was going to go call her denise coulter but I didn't want to insult the transgendered.srsly the "coulter is a tranny" meme is offensive on so many levels (http://mediagadfly.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/unfunny-transmisogyny/) kthx

memyselfI
05-25-2009, 12:24 PM
Apparently you haven't watched Rachael Maddow a whole lot prior to now. She's been a straight shooter since her first show. She's always displayed a fair amount of skepticism and she hasn't hesitated to call Obama or the democrats out when she felt they were not being true.

As far as the rest of us go, I'm not happy with the backtracking but that doesn't mean I'm ready to give up hope. Dude has only been in office for five months. The full weight of the status quo opposes his spoken agenda. He's not going to get anything done without securing some cooperation from that entity. It's not like he can snap his fingers and just make the nightmare go away.

Turning this country around is akin to turning around an ocean liner. You can't turn on a dime. You need a wide berth and it's going to take some time to slow down before you can actually get going in the other direction.

Unfortunately, some of the policies of the previous administration have created entanglements that require deft and nuance, as well as the cooperation of the status quo, to ensure that we disentangle ourselves safely and securely. Unfortunately, Obama is operating within a mine field left behind by the treachery of the previous administration.

That said, don't for one second think I'm happy about the flip flops because I'm not. But, I still think that the ship is slowly being turned around and that those ultimate goals will eventually be served once the mine field is cleared and the status quo has been tamed. Only time will tell, though. Anyone who says they have all the answers now is just talking shit, IMO.

Oh, I've watched Rachel since the beginning. When she was still a peon on Olbermann's show. Then she made a name for herself salivating all over Obama while simultaneously blasting all things Clinton. For her efforts, KO had Dan Abrams (the most objective anchor on MSNBC) removed and his spot awarded to Madcow. She, like Olbermann, pimped Obama endlessly and ruthlessly with the occasional and obligatory pregnant pause just to show they were not totally in the can for the man.

Now, she's got egg on her face because she actually bought into the fraud and will really have a cow when he doesn't do a damn thing to help gays in the military and fuggs her on a cause most dear to her heart.

PunkinDrublic
05-25-2009, 12:29 PM
Oh, I've watched Rachel since the beginning. When she was still a peon on Olbermann's show. Then she made a name for herself salivating all over Obama while simultaneously blasting all things Clinton. For her efforts, KO had Dan Abrams (the most objective anchor on MSNBC) fired and his spot awarded to Madcow. She, like Olbermann, pimped Obama endlessly and ruthlessly with the occasional and obligatory pregnant pause just to show they were not totally in the can for the man.

Now, she's got egg on her face because she actually bought into the fraud and will really have a cow when he doesn't do a damn thing to help gays in the military and fuggs her on a cause most dear to her heart.

All insults no decent argument. You're such a con in that you label anybody who supported or voted for Obama an O-bot. There's no grey area in your world Obama supporters don't criticize him and then it shocks you when you realize how full of shit you are.

ClevelandBronco
05-25-2009, 12:36 PM
Maybe you should think through these things before you speak in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax#Prisons_with_supermax_facilities

Prisons with supermax facilities

[edit] United States
Most of these facilities only contain supermax wings or sections, with other parts of the facility under lesser security measures.

U.S. Penitentiary Florence ADMAX (Administrative Maximum) Facility - Florence, Colorado (entirely Supermax)
United States Penitentiary - Marion, Illinois (Downgraded to a medium-security facility in September 2006)[citation needed]
Alcatraz Island - San Francisco, California (Closed March 21, 1962)
USP Tucson - Tucson, Arizona
Holman Correctional Facility - Atmore, Alabama
ASPC-Eyman, SMU II - Florence, Arizona
Varner Supermax - Grady, Arkansas
Pelican Bay State Prison - Crescent City, California
California State Prison, Corcoran - Corcoran, California
United States Penitentiary - Atwater, California
United States Penitentiary - Coleman, Florida
United States Penitentiary - Atlanta, Georgia
Tamms Correctional Center - Tamms, Illinois
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, SHU - Carlisle, Indiana
Westville Correctional Facility, WCU - Westville, Indiana
United States Penitentiary - Terre Haute, Indiana
United States Penitentiary - Leavenworth, Kansas (being downgraded to medium security)
United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (military prison)
Maine State Prison - Warren, Maine
Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center - Baltimore, Maryland
Minnesota Correctional Facility - Oak Park Heights - Stillwater, Minnesota
Mississippi State Penitentiary - Parchman, Mississippi
Northern Correctional Institution - Somers, Connecticut
Florida State Prison - Raiford, Florida
United States Penitentiary - Allenwood, Pennsylvania
Sing Sing Correctional Facility - Ossining, New York
Ohio State Penitentiary - Youngstown, Ohio
Idaho Maximum Security Institution - Boise, Idaho
Oklahoma State Penitentiary - McAlester, Oklahoma
United States Penitentiary - Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
Riverbend Maximum Security Institution - Nashville, Tennessee
Polunsky Unit - Livingston, Texas
United States Penitentiary - Beaumont, Texas
Utah State Prison - Draper, Utah
Wallens Ridge State Prison - Big Stone Gap, Virginia
Red Onion State Prison - Pound, Virginia
Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility - Ionia, Michigan
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex - Fayette County, West Virginia
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility - Boscobel, Wisconsin
North Branch Correctional Institution - Cumberland, Maryland (final housing unit will begin operation in summer of 2008)
New Hampshire State Prison - Men - Concord, New Hampshire
Massachusetts Correctional Institution - Cedar Junction - Walpole, Massachusetts
Attica Correctional Facility - Attica, New York
Upstate Correctional Facility - Malone, New York

To be fair, several of those don't belong on your list, since he was speaking specifically about federal prisons and quite a few of these are state facilities. I'd disallow military prisons as well, but that's just me.

Florence is the only one that is entirely Supermax. I think you guys have to split this tackle.

Cannibal
05-25-2009, 12:42 PM
. ..do you honestly think repeating this over and over really means anything?

if anything, you're the one who can't let go of Hillary.

There thousands of frumpy bitter housewives that are still mad about Obama defeating Hillary. If you can't see that you are delusional.

PunkinDrublic
05-25-2009, 12:45 PM
There thousands of frumpy bitter housewives that are still mad about Obama defeating Hillary. If you can't see that you are delusional.

Exactly that's why you can't take any of these threads seriously. There's no objective or constructive criticism. There's just bitterness that a woman didn't get elected first.

wild1
05-25-2009, 12:45 PM
honest liberals are realizing that they elected someon who is indeed a leftist radical as they had hoped, but who is beholden to politics first.

He takes care of himself first, and then if he has time, he might throw you a bone.

patteeu
05-25-2009, 12:48 PM
For my part, I've been pretty critical of most of his major policy moves. He was dealt a poor hand, but I don't like the choices and people he's cozied up to so far to try to get out of it. He's got time to redeem himself in my eyes, but he's got to work himself back.

Me too. heh.

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 12:48 PM
1st of all give them a trial to you know actually make sure they are guilty?
And how do you do that without compromising national security?

patteeu
05-25-2009, 12:53 PM
What "lie" are you referring to in connection with a major policy initiative to date?

For one thing, his promise to close Guantanamo. Surely when he made that promise, the reasonable inference was that he was going to not only close that particular facility, but also that he was going to put an end to that style of detention. It remains to be seen if he will actually close the facility (which is a barebones minimum to even pretend he kept that promise with a straight face), but he's already embraced most of the rest of the Bush detention policy in all but the most superficial ways from rendition, to indefinite detention without trial, to military commissions, to leaving harsh interrogation techniques (minus waterboarding) on the table for future use.

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 12:55 PM
For one thing, his promise to close Guantanamo. Surely when he made that promise, the reasonable inference was that he was going to not only close that particular facility, but also that he was going to put an end to that style of detention. It remains to be seen if he will actually close the facility (which is a barebones minimum to even pretend he kept that promise with a straight face), but he's already embraced most of the rest of the Bush detention policy in all but the most superficial ways from rendition, to indefinite detention without trial, to military commissions, to leaving harsh interrogation techniques (minus waterboarding) on the table for future use.
but, you approve of these measures, correct?

stevieray
05-25-2009, 12:56 PM
There thousands of frumpy bitter housewives that are still mad about Obama defeating Hillary. If you can't see that you are delusional.

BS. It's irrelevant..and it's funny that the only ones who usually bring her up is...the left.

talk about delusional...

Saul Good
05-25-2009, 12:57 PM
And how do you do that without compromising national security?

Who cares? The terrorists' rights are more important. Our government was established to protect the rights of terrorists, not to protect and defend the homeland.

patteeu
05-25-2009, 12:57 PM
But, my ideals and principles like holding people against their will without charges or having their day in court is facing a real world problem. Do I release my enemy to possible kill again because the cops/military screwed up the arrest or tortured the person?

It's awesome that you finally recognize that there's a real world out there. Better late than never, I suppose.

patteeu
05-25-2009, 01:00 PM
Bravo deneocon maybe you're waking up and beginning to realize that somebody who votes and supported obama isn't automatically an o-bot.

memyselfi is about as far from a neocon as you can get. She's one of the few around here who has maintained a principled anti-neocon, non-conservative position on politics from the beginning without ever even admitting that we live in a real world like BRC just did.

patteeu
05-25-2009, 01:01 PM
Still waiting? No one? Bueller...Bueller...

Hold them at Gitmo as long as necessary, duh.

patteeu
05-25-2009, 01:02 PM
but, you approve of these measures, correct?

To the extent that he's maintaining grown-up, Bush policies that are cognizant of the real world, of course I do.

KC native
05-25-2009, 01:02 PM
It's awesome that you finally recognize that there's a real world out there. Better late than never, I suppose.

ROFL Now, we just gotta wait for you to come around to the real world too.

Saul Good
05-25-2009, 01:03 PM
memyselfi is about as far from a neocon as you can get. She's one of the few around here who has maintained a principled anti-neocon, non-conservative position on politics from the beginning without ever even admitting that we live in a real world like BRC just did.

WRONG

She disagrees with Obama, ergo: neocon, Halliburton, Diebold, big corporation, war-profiteering!!!

chiefforlife
05-25-2009, 01:04 PM
It's awesome that you finally recognize that there's a real world out there. Better late than never, I suppose.

Its interesting to watch Obama have the same realization. I had hoped he had a better understanding of things before getting elected.

Saul Good
05-25-2009, 01:05 PM
ROFL Now, we just gotta wait for you to come around to the real world too.

Brilliant insight. We can always count on you to add to the discourse with a fresh perspective. I'm a little disappointed that you didn't post a 5 page article to go with your emoticon, though.

Saul Good
05-25-2009, 01:06 PM
Its interesting to watch Obama have the same realization. I had hoped he had a better understanding of things before getting elected.

I seem to remember Hillary mentioning something about this during the primaries.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 01:09 PM
Hold them at Gitmo as long as necessary, duh.

Maybe Gitmo would be more acceptable if the chaps being held had some project to work on that builds some self esteem. I was wondering about that and teach them a trade they could fall back on later in life so they wouldnt feel like a life as a terrorist was their only good job.

Why cant the USDA go in with a little grant money and have Iowa State build a Hog production facility? The Chaps could work, raise some nice pigs and the meat used to feed the soldiers stationed at Gitmo.

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 01:11 PM
It's awesome that you finally recognize that there's a real world out there. Better late than never, I suppose.
Bush was at fault here. They should have never been put in Gitmo to start with. Should have just built a jail or used a jail in Iraq or afganistan. Taking them to U.S. soil opened up this pandoras box.

Whats Obama to do? release terriosts that have sworn to kill Americans as soon as they are released?

Ultra Peanut
05-25-2009, 01:15 PM
ROFL Now, we just gotta wait for you to come around to the real world too.A glimpse into pat's domain:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FiFKS62wQAA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FiFKS62wQAA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

StcChief
05-25-2009, 01:16 PM
Maybe Gitmo would be more acceptable if the chaps being held had some project to work on that builds some self esteem. I was wondering about that and teach them a trade they could fall back on later in life so they wouldnt feel like a life as a terrorist was their only good job.

Why cant the USDA go in with a little grant money and have Iowa State build a Hog production facility? The Chaps could work, raise some nice pigs and the meat used to feed the soldiers stationed at Gitmo.and if the inmates ....are restless... the threat of pig blood.

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 01:17 PM
Who cares? The terrorists' rights are more important. Our government was established to protect the rights of terrorists, not to protect and defend the homeland.
U.S. citizens have those rights not terriosts. No one is saying terriosts have the same rights as U.S. citzens just because they are in U.S. custody.

StcChief
05-25-2009, 01:18 PM
Its interesting to watch Obama have the same realization. I had hoped he had a better understanding of things before getting elected.it was about GETTING ELECTED... Ideology was in the way. Now the reality of the job is really hitting home.

memyselfI
05-25-2009, 01:25 PM
U.S. citizens have those rights not terriosts. No one is saying terriosts have the same rights as U.S. citzens just because they are in U.S. custody.

Please point out where in the constitution or bill of rights that it makes a designation of the US government being bound to apply the law only in regards to it's citizens and none other? IMO, those documents are as much directed at what the government can or cannot do equally, if not more, than they are what a particular person is entitled too.

BTW, have you let the USSC know that the laws don't apply to non-citizens as they keep ruling that they do because it's the US government they are subjecting to upholding the law and not the citizenship of an individual.

Saul Good
05-25-2009, 01:26 PM
it was about GETTING ELECTED... Ideology was in the way. Now the reality of the job is really hitting home.

It's not hitting home. He's already got what he wanted.

It's like lying to a woman you meet by telling her how well endowed and good in bed you are. By the time she finds out you're lying, it's too late.

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 01:27 PM
it was about GETTING ELECTED... Ideology was in the way. Now the reality of the job is really hitting home.
Bring a strict idealogue and releasing the most dangerous terroists to kill more Americans would be asine. Holding people without trial or charges is an ahorrent to us but whats the alternative?

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 01:30 PM
Please point out where in the constitution or bill of rights that it makes a designation of the US government being bound to apply the law only in regards to it's citizens and none other? IMO, those documents are as much directed at what the government can or cannot do equally, if not more, than they are what a particular person is entitled too.

BTW, have you let the USSC know that the laws don't apply to non-citizens because they keep ruling that they do because it's the US government they are subjecting to upholding the law and not the citizenship of an individual.
I'm no lawyer nor do I play one on TV. But, as f\ar as I'm concerned, the only laws that apply to the terriosts is international law and or any treaty's we have signed. And I say a big FU to anything the UN does like pass a resolution to release the terriosts.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 01:36 PM
Bring a strict idealogue and releasing the most dangerous terroists to kill more Americans would be asine. Holding people without trial or charges is an ahorrent to us but whats the alternative?

Holding a terrorist is abhorrent?

patteeu
05-25-2009, 01:45 PM
Bush was at fault here. They should have never been put in Gitmo to start with. Should have just built a jail or used a jail in Iraq or afganistan. Taking them to U.S. soil opened up this pandoras box.

Whats Obama to do? release terriosts that have sworn to kill Americans as soon as they are released?

Gitmo was no more US soil than any American built/controlled prison in Iraq or Afghanistan would have been. In fact, until Justice Kennedy, who decided to swing left instead of right at that particular moment, decided that Gitmo was "US soil" it was generally believed to be foreign soil.

Leaving that aside though, I see that your heartfelt "ideals and principles" only go so far though. Maybe you should take a minute and think about what those ideals and principles really are. By what principle do you distinguish between Gitmo and a different US prison at a different foreign location?

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 01:47 PM
Holding a terrorist is abhorrent?
Holding human beings without trial or a chance to repudiate the charges against them is abhorrant.

Is there a difference between a petty thief and a terriost, yes IMHO.

So we don't apply the same principles to to the terriost that we would to the petty thief. Again, the real world must be dealt with and we can't just say release the terriost because we can't convict them in a court of law or holding a person without charges or rights is against our beliefs.

Causing the future death of Americans is against our beliefs too.

PunkinDrublic
05-25-2009, 01:49 PM
memyselfi is about as far from a neocon as you can get. She's one of the few around here who has maintained a principled anti-neocon, non-conservative position on politics from the beginning without ever even admitting that we live in a real world like BRC just did.

ROFL

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 01:49 PM
Gitmo was no more US soil than any American built/controlled prison in Iraq or Afghanistan would have been. In fact, until Justice Kennedy, who decided to swing left instead of right at that particular moment, decided that Gitmo was "US soil" it was generally believed to be foreign soil.

Leaving that aside though, I see that your heartfelt "ideals and principles" only go so far though. Maybe you should take a minute and think about what those ideals and principles really are. By what principle do you distinguish between Gitmo and a different US prison at a different foreign location?
Gitmo is U.S. soil. Period.

memyselfI
05-25-2009, 01:54 PM
Holding a terrorist is abhorrent?

The US government breaking it's own laws and ignoring it's constitution IS abhorrent even if it's a means to an end. It's a slippery slope. It starts with terrorists and then...

memyselfI
05-25-2009, 01:55 PM
ROFL at the idea of me being a Neocon. The anti-war human rights activist MUST be a neocon because she disagrees with what Bush Lite is doing.

patteeu
05-25-2009, 02:04 PM
Gitmo is U.S. soil. Period.

Part of the problem here might by your willingness to accept liberal orthodoxy without a hint of critical thought.

patteeu
05-25-2009, 02:06 PM
ROFL at the idea of me being a Neocon. The anti-war human rights activist MUST be a neocon because she disagrees with what Bush Lite is doing.

I've never seen a word as misused as that one, except maybe "love", as in, "sure I love you, babe".

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 02:41 PM
A happy liberal is one who accepts. Thinking leads to doubts.

memyselfI
05-25-2009, 02:47 PM
A happy liberal is one who accepts. Thinking leads to doubts.

I consider myself blissfully and skeptically liberal.

What does that do to your theory?

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 02:51 PM
I consider myself blissfully and skeptically liberal.

What does that do to your theory?

Thats a good question. I dont think you are liberal. Clearly you think and that doesnt fit. Are you a neolib? maybe a LiboCon?

PunkinDrublic
05-25-2009, 02:55 PM
ROFL at the idea of me being a Neocon. The anti-war human rights activist MUST be a neocon because she disagrees with what Bush Lite is doing.

Posting a bunch of bitter tripe on a messageboard doesn't make you an activist. You're simplemindedness is what makes you a neocon.

MoreLemonPledge
05-25-2009, 02:57 PM
Oh, I get it. Instead of saying "Obama", you replace the last part with "bummer" to emphasize the fact that you are not satisfied with his presidency. It's a play on words. People know how you feel about him with just a small change of his name! That's why it's funny!

PunkinDrublic
05-25-2009, 03:00 PM
Oh, I get it. Instead of saying "Obama", you replace the last part with "bummer" to emphasize the fact that you are not satisfied with his presidency. It's a play on words. People know how you feel about him with just a small change of his name! That's why it's funny!

It's what makes her an activist. Remember if you give Obama any credit that makes you an O-bot.

blaise
05-25-2009, 03:02 PM
Maybe you should think through these things before you speak in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermax#Prisons_with_supermax_facilities

Prisons with supermax facilities

[edit] United States
Most of these facilities only contain supermax wings or sections, with other parts of the facility under lesser security measures.

U.S. Penitentiary Florence ADMAX (Administrative Maximum) Facility - Florence, Colorado (entirely Supermax)
United States Penitentiary - Marion, Illinois (Downgraded to a medium-security facility in September 2006)[citation needed]
Alcatraz Island - San Francisc.o, California (Closed March 21, 1962)
USP Tucson - Tucson, Arizona
Holman Correctional Facility - Atmore, Alabama
ASPC-Eyman, SMU II - Florence, Arizona
Varner Supermax - Grady, Arkansas
Pelican Bay State Prison - Crescent City, California
California State Prison, Corcoran - Corcoran, California
United States Penitentiary - Atwater, California
United States Penitentiary - Coleman, Florida
United States Penitentiary - Atlanta, Georgia
Tamms Correctional Center - Tamms, Illinois
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, SHU - Carlisle, Indiana
Westville Correctional Facility, WCU - Westville, Indiana
United States Penitentiary - Terre Haute, Indiana
United States Penitentiary - Leavenworth, Kansas (being downgraded to medium security)
United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (military prison)
Maine State Prison - Warren, Maine
Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center - Baltimore, Maryland
Minnesota Correctional Facility - Oak Park Heights - Stillwater, Minnesota
Mississippi State Penitentiary - Parchman, Mississippi
Northern Correctional Institution - Somers, Connecticut
Florida State Prison - Raiford, Florida
United States Penitentiary - Allenwood, Pennsylvania
Sing Sing Correctional Facility - Ossining, New York
Ohio State Penitentiary - Youngstown, Ohio
Idaho Maximum Security Institution - Boise, Idaho
Oklahoma State Penitentiary - McAlester, Oklahoma
United States Penitentiary - Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
Riverbend Maximum Security Institution - Nashville, Tennessee
Polunsky Unit - Livingston, Texas
United States Penitentiary - Beaumont, Texas
Utah State Prison - Draper, Utah
Wallens Ridge State Prison - Big Stone Gap, Virginia
Red Onion State Prison - Pound, Virginia
Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility - Ionia, Michigan
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex - Fayette County, West Virginia
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility - Boscobel, Wisconsin
North Branch Correctional Institution - Cumberland, Maryland (final housing unit will begin operation in summer of 2008)
New Hampshire State Prison - Men - Concord, New Hampshire
Massachusetts Correctional Institution - Cedar Junction - Walpole, Massachusetts
Attica Correctional Facility - Attica, New York
Upstate Correctional Facility - Malone, New York

Maybe you should closely read a list and consider the source before you copy it and paste it from Wikipedia. Almost all of those are state facilities. The only federal supermax prison is the ADX in Colorado. The federal ones listed there are USPs, not Supermax prisons. So, you're wrong. Did you even notice that a bunch of those said State Prisons before you rushed to make an ass out of yourself?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5383628

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/21/barack-obama/obama-correct-no-inmate-has-ever-escaped-supermax-/

Okay dumbass?

memyselfI
05-25-2009, 03:11 PM
Posting a bunch of bitter tripe on a messageboard doesn't make you an activist. You're simplemindedness is what makes you a neocon.

Agreed, if I didn't support causes off the board but I do financially and otherwise. And honey, simple mindedness is in no short order on this board. The folks doing it happen to have a "D" behind their names instead of the "R" that was previously visible.

Same crap being regurgitated only about Bush LITE now instead.

memyselfI
05-25-2009, 03:12 PM
It's what makes her an activist. Remember if you give Obama any credit that makes you an O-bot.

No, it's refusing to acknowledge his mistakes. It's becoming Patteau. Back when he was his former self...

no offense, love. :D

blaise
05-25-2009, 03:14 PM
To be fair, several of those don't belong on your list, since he was speaking specifically about federal prisons and quite a few of these are state facilities. I'd disallow military prisons as well, but that's just me.

Florence is the only one that is entirely Supermax. I think you guys have to split this tackle.

I don't split anything. The ADX is the only federal prison recognized as a supermax. Terre Haute has administrative status because they do federal executions there, but it's not a supermax prison. A couple of others have administrative status because they're medical facilities. Places like Lewisburg and Allenwood are Federal Prisons on jAZ's ridicuous list, but they're not supermax prisons. They're USPs (max security). There's a difference. In the supermax the prisoners are in their cells basically all day by themselves. In USPs like Allenwood and Lewisburg, etc. they're not. They have some degree of mixture with the rest of the prisoners and c/o's. There are a few isolated cells in facilities such as those but those are generally used only as temporary fixes for prisoners who are being punished, or if there's a prisoner who's safety is at risk because of threats of violence from other prisoners. For instance, gang retaliation, public figures, mob members, pedophiles. Generally they don't like housing prisoners in those cells because there's a host of concerns when they use them.
jAX just rushed to check what I said, saw some incredibly flawed list on Wiki and ran as fast as he (she? I don't know) could to try and act a fool. It worked.

memyselfI
05-25-2009, 03:14 PM
Thats a good question. I dont think you are liberal. Clearly you think and that doesnt fit. Are you a neolib? maybe a LiboCon?

I'm the same and that is a liberal...

It's those contorting themselves and their beliefs to continue to support Bush Lite who've moved the goalposts.

googlegoogle
05-25-2009, 03:33 PM
No Chris & Rachel tagteam blowjob for Bama.

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 03:48 PM
The US government breaking it's own laws and ignoring it's constitution IS abhorrent even if it's a means to an end. It's a slippery slope. It starts with terrorists and then...
I agree. This path is full of danger. But whats the alternative? Your in favor of releasing hard core Al-Quaeda terriosts back into the wild?

Ultra Peanut
05-25-2009, 03:52 PM
World is in financial crise, most of countries are in recession. For 2008, an estimated 2.6 million U.S. jobs were eliminated. In Russia only in december 2008 1.0 million jobs were eliminated. Learn how to survive and play virtual stock exchange trading with stocks and goods. Only the best wins!


stocks.en.st/PLEASE TO MEET!

http://j.photos.cx/russianfriend-ea7.jpg

memyselfI
05-25-2009, 04:31 PM
I agree. This path is full of danger. But whats the alternative? Your in favor of releasing hard core Al-Quaeda terriosts back into the wild?

Stop with this either/or and black/white thinking that Dems lambasted the Cons for doing for 8 years...There needs to be trials and if there is evidence obtained illegally then it should not be admitted because of the risk of a mistrial.

Look, I've said it before and here it is again...the ONLY reason the US government does not want a trial for the 'worst and hardcore' detainees is NOT because of the risk they pose to the security of the nation. Nope. It's the risk they pose to the powers that be once those folks are tried and war crimes committed against them are exposed.

It's to protect the US government NOT the country.

banyon
05-25-2009, 04:34 PM
Stop with this either/or and black/white thinking that Dems lambasted the Cons for doing for 8 years...There needs to be trials and if there is evidence obtained illegally then it should not be admitted because of the risk of a mistrial.

Look, I've said it before and here it is again...the ONLY reason the US government does not want a trial for the 'worst and hardcore' detainees is NOT because of the risk they pose to the security of the nation. Nope. It's the risk they pose to the powers that be once those folks are tried and war crimes committed against them are exposed.

It's to protect the US government NOT the country.

Beyond a reasonable doubt? No hearsay allowed?

How many do you think we will be able to convict out of these hundreds that we plucked off the battlefield on the say so of rumors?

BigRedChief
05-25-2009, 05:01 PM
Stop with this either/or and black/white thinking that Dems lambasted the Cons for doing for 8 years...There needs to be trials and if there is evidence obtained illegally then it should not be admitted because of the risk of a mistrial.

Look, I've said it before and here it is again...the ONLY reason the US government does not want a trial for the 'worst and hardcore' detainees is NOT because of the risk they pose to the security of the nation. Nope. It's the risk they pose to the powers that be once those folks are tried and war crimes committed against them are exposed.

It's to protect the US government NOT the country.
On some level I would agree with that. President Bush lied the country into a war. He made the factual intelligence match his desired global and political aims, Bush led this country down a path that we didn't have to go that got more Americans killed than 9/11 did.

But even though I believe that I don't think the country would be best served by putting him or Cheney on trial.

BucEyedPea
05-25-2009, 06:17 PM
I agree. This path is full of danger. But whats the alternative? Your in favor of releasing hard core Al-Quaeda terriosts back into the wild?

The alternative is to follow the Constitution by declaring war and making them POWs. Until then they're criminals who must be tried. If innocent release back to their homeland. If guilty jail or execute them depending on what they were responsible for. KISS

Frankly if they have to remain at Gitmo until trial I have no issue with it. So long was we abide by the Geneva Convention with them being designated POWs.

ChiTown
05-25-2009, 07:25 PM
Rachel is Keith Olbermann with a clit, well, at least a bigger clit any way.

VAChief
05-25-2009, 07:33 PM
Rachel is Keith Olbermann with a clit, well, at least a bigger clit any way.

You may be right there, and Ann Coulter probably has a bigger dick than Rush.

ChiTown
05-25-2009, 07:35 PM
You may be right there, and Ann Coulter probably has a bigger dick than Rush.

Not sure about dick, but it's likely she has a bigger set of balls.............

StcChief
05-25-2009, 08:06 PM
I agree. This path is full of danger. But whats the alternative? Your in favor of releasing hard core Al-Quaeda terriosts back into the wild?to test the true resolve of Homeland security and what we have built..... it's on the Obummer's watch..... go for it.

are we built for security or not?

penchief
05-25-2009, 10:57 PM
Rachel is Keith Olbermann with a clit, well, at least a bigger clit any way.

I love it when people make uninformed generalizations.

ChiTown
05-26-2009, 12:40 AM
I love it when people make uninformed generalizations.

ROFL

Digital Takawira
05-26-2009, 01:41 AM
zomg lol! i see what you did with the play on words, very funny! how did you ever think to turn obama into obummer? and madcow? GENIUS! i forgot what a see you next tuesday you are. this is exactly the psychotic republican circle-jerk i thought it would be. wow

SBK
05-26-2009, 02:20 AM
The alternative is to follow the Constitution by declaring war and making them POWs. Until then they're criminals who must be tried. If innocent release back to their homeland. If guilty jail or execute them depending on what they were responsible for. KISS

Frankly if they have to remain at Gitmo until trial I have no issue with it. So long was we abide by the Geneva Convention with them being designated POWs.

As POW's we should just hold them until the war is over. Now, probably would have been a good idea to actually go about declaring war....

Once the war is over let their home countries deal with them. I don't want these guys anywhere near US soil.

J Diddy
05-26-2009, 02:43 AM
As POW's we should just hold them until the war is over. Now, probably would have been a good idea to actually go about declaring war....

Once the war is over let their home countries deal with them. I don't want these guys anywhere near US soil.


Who exactly would we declare war on?

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 06:16 AM
I'm so happy we have change we can believe in.

New tone, hopey change, all that.

:rolleyes:

***SPRAYER
05-26-2009, 06:17 AM
As POW's we should just hold them until the war is over. Now, probably would have been a good idea to actually go about declaring war....

Once the war is over let their home countries deal with them. I don't want these guys anywhere near US soil.

Al Qaeda hasn't surrendered yet. B.O. wanted to, but I guess he found out Bush was right.

patteeu
05-26-2009, 09:20 AM
zomg lol! i see what you did with the play on words, very funny! how did you ever think to turn obama into obummer? and madcow? GENIUS! i forgot what a see you next tuesday you are. this is exactly the psychotic republican circle-jerk i thought it would be. wow

New to the internet?

penchief
05-26-2009, 02:29 PM
ROFL

ROFL

Digital Takawira
05-28-2009, 01:59 PM
New to the internet?

new to sarcasm?

Calcountry
05-28-2009, 02:44 PM
I'm sorry for you that Hillary is not the President but you need to move on.

This is a Bush created problem. He faced the same issues Obama does right now. But, he punted the ball down the road and built Gitmo, instead of coming up with a plan to deal with these scumbags. Now its a symbol and recruiting tool for our enemies.


Do you seriously believe this? I mean, that's a second derivative argument.

How about this? What was the recruiting tool for the 19 hijackers? How about the 444 days Iran held our hostages? How about the Lebanese barracks bombing of our Marines? How about Kobar Towers?

What was the recruiting tool for our peace loving friends from the mid east on those?

BigRedChief
05-28-2009, 03:25 PM
Do you seriously believe this? I mean, that's a second derivative argument.

How about this? What was the recruiting tool for the 19 hijackers? How about the 444 days Iran held our hostages? How about the Lebanese barracks bombing of our Marines? How about Kobar Towers?

What was the recruiting tool for our peace loving friends from the mid east on those?
Are you trying to agrue that Gitmo hasn't been a recruiting tool used by Al-Quaeda?

patteeu
05-28-2009, 03:31 PM
Are you trying to agrue that Gitmo hasn't been a recruiting tool used by Al-Quaeda?

Our existence has been a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Should we abolish that too?

BigRedChief
05-28-2009, 03:39 PM
Our existence has been a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Should we abolish that too?
I think they are working on that.

Calcountry
05-28-2009, 04:01 PM
Our existence has been a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Should we abolish that too?I was trying to say that in my previous post. What was the recruiting tool on all those attacks that occurred prior to Gitmo?

Don't answer the question BRC, just throw your straw man back at me.

BTW, what the fug is BO gonna do with them? HE is making them a recruitment tool now, the tool.

The tool doesn't know that the more he bitches about Bush, the more he bitches against his own country.

It is kind of like saying your wife is a dumb bi*ch to your friends with your wife present.

You're the president now foo. President of WHAT country? Oh yeah, THAT country that you love so much that you want to fug it up beyond all recognition AND apologize for its existence to anyone who will lend you an ear.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 06:12 PM
Our existence has been a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Should we abolish that too?

That's just not even true.

The recruiting tool was permanent bases left on Muslim Holy Lands after PGWI. Well, at least it was what broke the camel's back. That and the increasing build-up of bases post PGWI during the 1990's.

Calcountry
05-28-2009, 06:28 PM
That's just not even true.

The recruiting tool was permanent bases left on Muslim Holy Lands after PGWI. Well, at least it was what broke the camel's back. That and the increasing build-up of bases post PGWI during the 1990's.Who recruited the Muslims up in New York the other day?

I'm like, they were so bent because we have bases in Holy lands.

They sure didn't mind us coming over there to save their asses from Sadaam though, did they?

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 06:33 PM
Sorry I say it's blowback... even Scheuer former head of binLaden unit in the CIA who knows them well and who is not anti war says similarly.

They don't hate us for who we are, they hate us for our govts' ME policies on their land. As a matter of fact, I hate what our govt's doing on our land too. Seems like natural allies.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 06:34 PM
As POW's we should just hold them until the war is over. Now, probably would have been a good idea to actually go about declaring war....

Once the war is over let their home countries deal with them. I don't want these guys anywhere near US soil.

Sounds good to me. There's benefits for us in a formal declare.It also provides window of time to end it too. Not to mention clearly defining the enemy helps in winning a war. Notice we won those but not all the non-declared ones.

BucEyedPea
05-28-2009, 06:41 PM
He mentions Rachael here.

Obama’s Democratic Authoritarianism
He's bad – really bad – on civil liberties

by Justin Raimondo


Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site

He's not closing Guantanamo, he's continuing the "preventive detention" policy of the Bush administration under a new rubric ("prolonged detention"), he's on board with military commissions ("reformed," of course) and the denial of habeas corpus – and last, but certainly not least, his supporters in Congress have launched a campaign to give him and his cabinet officials the power to close down the Internet in the name of "national security."

I won't go on at length about the brazen hypocrisy and general slipperiness exhibited by Obama and his fans when it comes to key civil liberties issues such as these. Jack Goldsmith, former head of George W. Bush's Office of Legal Counsel, and Rachel Maddow, progressive commentator on MSNBC, have done a superlative job of that. Goldsmith, of course, notes the president's turn on a dime with obvious approval, arguing that the Bush approach was haphazard and lacked any substantive legal basis, while Maddow is horrified that, instead of abolishing these Bush-era assaults on the Constitution, her former hero is intent on formalizing and "legalizing" them. Go here to see her deliver the kind of stinging rebuke to Obama and his administration that Rush Limbaugh and his fellow radio ranters could never hope to match.

Maddow strikes a powerful blow against Cheneyism-without-Cheney [LOL]by pointing out that the president's preventive detention policy – which claims for the U.S. government the right to hold anyone, including American citizens, indefinitely, without trial, without formal charges, and without telling anyone – is worse than anything Bush ever attempted in one important sense. The Bushian effort was secretive and strictly ad hoc; the Obamaites, however, are quite openly constructing what Obama calls "a new legal regime" to preside over this wholesale assault on the Constitution.

At least the Bush crowd had enough remnants of a moral sense to sneak around and try [.pdf] to hide their crimes against liberty and the rule of law. Although they tried to rationalize their actions with after-the-fact legal arguments, the effort seems to me rather halfhearted: they weren't really all that concerned with legalizing their power grab. They just went ahead and did it, and damn the torpedoes.

The Obamaites, on the other hand, have a different style – but the substance is essentially the same, with the addition of a few minor tweaks and rhetorical flourishes. They want to bureaucratize and institutionalize the horrors of the past eight years and make what used to be unthinkable routine.

It was Obama's cave-ins on civil liberties that prevented me from voting for him and tap dancing rhetoric on Iraq ( language to keep us there). I knew MacCain wouldn't be different. Now he's even worse....as he and the D congress act like dictators doing what Gingrich essentially called for: shutting down the internet. ( paraphrased)

patteeu
05-29-2009, 06:34 AM
The tool doesn't know that the more he bitches about Bush, the more he bitches against his own country.

It is kind of like saying your wife is a dumb bi*ch to your friends with your wife present.

You're the president now foo. President of WHAT country? Oh yeah, THAT country that you love so much that you want to fug it up beyond all recognition AND apologize for its existence to anyone who will lend you an ear.

This deserved repeating, IMO. After a while, your friends are going to be convinced that your wife really is a dumb bitch.

patteeu
05-29-2009, 06:38 AM
That's just not even true.

The recruiting tool was permanent bases left on Muslim Holy Lands after PGWI. Well, at least it was what broke the camel's back. That and the increasing build-up of bases post PGWI during the 1990's.

Sorry Buc, but it is true. It's not just the military bases. It's also our economic and cultural relationships. It's our oil companies working in that region. Our values (especially such values as consumerism and tolerance of what they see as vice) infecting their region. It's us being us and interacting with their countries in the same way we interact with the rest of the world.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 07:54 AM
Sorry Buc, but it is true. It's not just the military bases. It's also our economic and cultural relationships. It's our oil companies working in that region. Our values (especially such values as consumerism and tolerance of what they see as vice) infecting their region. It's us being us and interacting with their countries in the same way we interact with the rest of the world.

Nope...this is denial and a refusal to look at some of our policies. Refusal to read the surveys that show they admire our institutions like rep govt at 80%'ish—but this drops when it comes to our policies there. I will admit that the consumerism as well as western smut and secular values is another one...but it's still comes down to what we do, because they know their govts are paid puppets of the US and they have little say in getting rid of those things which they have a right to do. The best way to determine if something is wrong or just a bad policy is to see if you'd like it if you were in their shoes. Would you like China to have permanent bases here in America? I know I wouldn't.

Get out of the ME and leave them alone.

patteeu
05-29-2009, 08:26 AM
Nope...this is denial and a refusal to look at some of our policies. Refusal to read the surveys that show they admire our institutions like rep govt at 80%'ish—but this drops when it comes to our policies there. I will admit that the consumerism as well as western smut and secular values is another one...but it's still comes down to what we do, because they know their govts are paid puppets of the US and they have little say in getting rid of those things which they have a right to do. The best way to determine if something is wrong or just a bad policy is to see if you'd like it if you were in their shoes. Would you like China to have permanent bases here in America? I know I wouldn't.

Get out of the ME and leave them alone.

You're deluding yourself. They don't just want our military out of the middle east, they want *US* out including our economic presence.* I'm sure there are a lot of middle easterners, probably even a majority of them, who welcome some or possibly even most aspects of western influence and the benefits of our economic relationship, but the jihadists are the people we're talking about, not the general population reflected in your survey.

*Osama bin Laden, in particular, derives a great deal of antipathy for the west from the fact that western oil companies have made a lot of money for themselves and for the Saudi elite who brought them in. He thinks Saudi Arabia's valuable oil resources are being stolen from the Saudi people.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 08:37 AM
I'm not interested in arguing this same topic endlessly with you pat. If you want to believe the state, as a proclaimed libertarian, then go ahead and do it. But the state has a vested interest in using rhetoric to justify war. You and I are NEVER going to agree on this.

BTW it's true in personal life too. Tit for tat just keeps a feud going. Take a look at it.

patteeu
05-29-2009, 08:59 AM
I'm not interested in arguing this same topic endlessly with you pat. If you want to believe the state, as a proclaimed libertarian, then go ahead and do it. But the state has a vested interest in using rhetoric to justify war. You and I are NEVER going to agree on this.

BTW it's true in personal life too. Tit for tat just keeps a feud going. Take a look at it.

I'm just telling you what I've read from people like Michael Scheuer. He worked for the government though so I guess he's the "state" in that sense.