Obama and Change --- Where?
-
Well, so far his biggest change is changing the US back to its pre-9/11 anti-terrorism posture. But, hey, as long as the major targets are blue staters, who gives a shit? They asked for change, they should be the first ones to get it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Hey, I live in a blue state! But I don't take mass transit, nor live near a city center, I also don't go to open air farmers markets and I don't drink cappuccino at Starbucks so maybe I'm ok.
MrPlankton
Mexican boy: Viene la tormenta! Sarah Connor: What did he just say? Gas Station Attendant: He said there's a storm coming Sarah Connor: [sighs] I know.
modified on Thursday, January 22, 2009 9:10 PM
-
They need to be charged before they can be guilty. Then they need to be tried before they can be guilty. Some might be guilty. Some might not. I'd prefer we didn't take such a cavalier approach to detainees. If there are innocents in there, they do deserve justice. Right now all they have is limbo. AND until they are proven guilty they are still human. But, feel free to just blindly hate without critical thought. Which will most likely drip in your response to this post. If you even bother.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
They need to be charged before they can be guilty. Then they need to be tried before they can be guilty.
Fair enough, but weren't most of them captured on the battle field? They weren't detained for breaking the law, they were enemy combatants. What's the best course of action for those cases? Generally captured enemies are held until the conflict is ended, which of course is generally no where near the situation with the "war on terror".
Synaptrik wrote:
But, feel free to just blindly hate without critical thought. Which will most likely drip in your response to this post. If you even bother.
This is all just speculative assholery. Since you've decided that you already know my entire world philosophy, there's really no point in responding. Nonetheless, I want to see the right thing done, whatever that is. That doesn't require me to feel compelled by what they want or prefer. Of course they're human, and should be dealt with appropriately based on their actions.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Well, so far his biggest change is changing the US back to its pre-9/11 anti-terrorism posture. But, hey, as long as the major targets are blue staters, who gives a shit? They asked for change, they should be the first ones to get it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
so far his biggest change is changing the US back to its pre-9/11 anti-terrorism posture.
Yep! That's what he said in his speech : "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" Stan, if you are willing to commit any despicable act to protect your sorry ass you will never win. Haven't you seen any movies ? The good guys always win ;P
-
Shog9 wrote:
you should probably know there are no real liberals here
I'm a Jeffersonian, myself.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I'm a Marxist.
-
I'm a Marxist.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
It was a situation where he assumed his taxes were paid by the employer when they weren't.
Geithner' is a sleeze. He knew perfectly well what he was doing (A child care deduction for his kid's summer camp - gimme a break, even I know better). Now he's blaming it on Turbo-Tax. Geeze, I know they're going to approve the guy, but lets not pretend he's clean as wind-blown snow. Franky, he probably should withdraw, or be withdrawn by Obama, but they figure this will blow over (and it will, the press shows no inclination to follow this one up). It does not, however, give me a warm feeling that we are replacing one crook with another at Treasury. I guess honesty isn't a very important job requirement.
Rob Graham wrote:
Now he's blaming it on Turbo-Tax
Funny thing is that when I used as was contracting, Turbo Tax automatically added in all those pesky little self-employment taxes. I would have had to drop into edit-by-hand mode and ignore the warnings at the end to get rid of 'em.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Hey, I live in a blue state! But I don't take mass transit, nor live near a city center, I also don't go to open air farmers markets and I don't drink cappuccino at Starbucks so maybe I'm ok.
MrPlankton
Mexican boy: Viene la tormenta! Sarah Connor: What did he just say? Gas Station Attendant: He said there's a storm coming Sarah Connor: [sighs] I know.
modified on Thursday, January 22, 2009 9:10 PM
-
Synaptrik wrote:
They need to be charged before they can be guilty. Then they need to be tried before they can be guilty.
Fair enough, but weren't most of them captured on the battle field? They weren't detained for breaking the law, they were enemy combatants. What's the best course of action for those cases? Generally captured enemies are held until the conflict is ended, which of course is generally no where near the situation with the "war on terror".
Synaptrik wrote:
But, feel free to just blindly hate without critical thought. Which will most likely drip in your response to this post. If you even bother.
This is all just speculative assholery. Since you've decided that you already know my entire world philosophy, there's really no point in responding. Nonetheless, I want to see the right thing done, whatever that is. That doesn't require me to feel compelled by what they want or prefer. Of course they're human, and should be dealt with appropriately based on their actions.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Generally captured enemies are held until the conflict is ended,
Yes. Because that's how you treat P.O.W's. If these guys were declared to be P.O.W.'s they'd have access to the Red Cross (or Crescent?) and there would be a set of defined rules about what could and could not be done with them. The Bush Administration did not want this to be the case.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I'm a Marxist
Groucho or Zeppo?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Zeppo!
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Generally captured enemies are held until the conflict is ended,
Yes. Because that's how you treat P.O.W's. If these guys were declared to be P.O.W.'s they'd have access to the Red Cross (or Crescent?) and there would be a set of defined rules about what could and could not be done with them. The Bush Administration did not want this to be the case.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
That's kinda my question, how to classify them, or how should they have been classified. POW does seem to fit. Is there something else that would be a better fit? Still throwing them in US prisons doesn't seem right for some reason.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
That's kinda my question, how to classify them, or how should they have been classified. POW does seem to fit. Is there something else that would be a better fit? Still throwing them in US prisons doesn't seem right for some reason.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
POW does seem to fit.
It's not perfect - for instance, soldiers usually wear uniforms - but it makes sense to me, too. Cheny & Rumsfeld kept saying that we didn't have to treat them as POWs or follow the Geneva Convention with them. I believe they are right, but just because we didn't have to didn't mean we couldn't have done it or that it wasn't the right thing to do.
BoneSoft wrote:
Still throwing them in US prisons doesn't seem right for some reason
Certainly would be much poorer accommodations than the ones they have now. I wonder how we are going to deal with the ones who are fighting against be repatriated. They want to stay in prison. :wtf:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Zeppo!
-
More importantly, how's your health?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Well, I'm certainly "cleaned out" for spring. It's both good and bad - good there are less, bad that there were any. The French, unlike the Anglo-Saxons, seem to have this bizarre affinity for general anaesthesia - I feel like a truck ran over me. I much prefer the buzz from light sedation, anytime; you feel all floaty and copasetic, maaaan.
-
Well, I'm certainly "cleaned out" for spring. It's both good and bad - good there are less, bad that there were any. The French, unlike the Anglo-Saxons, seem to have this bizarre affinity for general anaesthesia - I feel like a truck ran over me. I much prefer the buzz from light sedation, anytime; you feel all floaty and copasetic, maaaan.
73Zeppelin wrote:
The French, unlike the Anglo-Saxons, seem to have this bizarre affinity for general anaesthesia
Maybe it comes from drinking wine from the age of 5 onwards. Takes so much local to kill the pain, it might as well be a general.
73Zeppelin wrote:
good there are less, bad that there were any.
Minor blessings are still blessings - and at least you know now, rather than waiting to find out.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I much prefer the buzz from light sedation, anytime; you feel all floaty and copasetic, maaaan
Oh yeah. (Of course, I am old enough to have said copasetic with a straight face.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
The French, unlike the Anglo-Saxons, seem to have this bizarre affinity for general anaesthesia
Maybe it comes from drinking wine from the age of 5 onwards. Takes so much local to kill the pain, it might as well be a general.
73Zeppelin wrote:
good there are less, bad that there were any.
Minor blessings are still blessings - and at least you know now, rather than waiting to find out.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I much prefer the buzz from light sedation, anytime; you feel all floaty and copasetic, maaaan
Oh yeah. (Of course, I am old enough to have said copasetic with a straight face.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Yeah, I can't complain really. I mean it's better that I have to do yearly screenings rather than having missed the vague symptoms and ended up with something far, far worse. Given the choice, however, I'd prefer to have it done without any anaesthesia at all over a general again. Talk about unpleasant. X|
-
Synaptrik wrote:
It was a situation where he assumed his taxes were paid by the employer when they weren't.
Geithner' is a sleeze. He knew perfectly well what he was doing (A child care deduction for his kid's summer camp - gimme a break, even I know better). Now he's blaming it on Turbo-Tax. Geeze, I know they're going to approve the guy, but lets not pretend he's clean as wind-blown snow. Franky, he probably should withdraw, or be withdrawn by Obama, but they figure this will blow over (and it will, the press shows no inclination to follow this one up). It does not, however, give me a warm feeling that we are replacing one crook with another at Treasury. I guess honesty isn't a very important job requirement.
All I said is that they are paid now. I'm not defending the guy but pointing out the facts. A lot of emotion tossin' around. My points are not emotional and I didn't vote for Obama. Wait and see what kind of job the guy does. The republicans in the senate didn't have much problem with it. Holder on the other hand...
This statement is false
-
Synaptrik wrote:
They need to be charged before they can be guilty. Then they need to be tried before they can be guilty.
Fair enough, but weren't most of them captured on the battle field? They weren't detained for breaking the law, they were enemy combatants. What's the best course of action for those cases? Generally captured enemies are held until the conflict is ended, which of course is generally no where near the situation with the "war on terror".
Synaptrik wrote:
But, feel free to just blindly hate without critical thought. Which will most likely drip in your response to this post. If you even bother.
This is all just speculative assholery. Since you've decided that you already know my entire world philosophy, there's really no point in responding. Nonetheless, I want to see the right thing done, whatever that is. That doesn't require me to feel compelled by what they want or prefer. Of course they're human, and should be dealt with appropriately based on their actions.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
This is all just speculative assholery.
Fair enough. Its the limbo state that I object to. Along the lines of Jon's response, if they are POWs then we should label and treat them accordingly. But a few of them could be tried and punished. That would be nice. And a few of them could be released if they are truly innocent. But, in a war with no end, its not fair to leave them without even the label of POW and hold them indefinitely without charge. And my bad for jumping the gun on assuming what your response would be. It is the soapbox.
This statement is false
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Looks like he paid em. Late. But as of right now, they are paid.
And all it took was a promotion to sec tres? Maybe we should promote everybody who owes back taxes? :laugh:
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
Interesting logic. Who would you prefer to see in that role? Or are you just jumping on this one piece for the sake of finding fault with the current choice? Would it really matter who he picked? Sounds like a witch hunt. But, I agree he shouldn't be given a free pass, but if he really does have the skillset needed, which many republican senators seem to think so, not with Holder though, then why not use him if he is willing to at least correct his mistakes?
This statement is false
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
so far his biggest change is changing the US back to its pre-9/11 anti-terrorism posture.
Yep! That's what he said in his speech : "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" Stan, if you are willing to commit any despicable act to protect your sorry ass you will never win. Haven't you seen any movies ? The good guys always win ;P
Sahir Shah wrote:
if you are willing to commit any despicable act to protect your sorry ass you will never win.
Yeah, you will.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.