On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Sam wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:50 PM, denstar wrote: > > 250 prisoners in Gitmo, eight black sites we know of in Europe with > unknown prisoners. > The US has been trying for years to do something with them. No country > will take them, most can't be tried in US courts because we didn't > read them their rights or gather evidence on the battlefield. > To think Obama solved this dilemma in one day is a leap of faith. Just > the fact that he gave himself a year shows he needs an extension on > that homework.
We dug ourselves into a hole, one which even magical Obama cannot simply wave a wand and fill. I think maybe part of my point is that he has left wiggle room. He could have been extreme, but he's playing it safe and smart (which is good and bad-- maybe he should just go for the gold, instead). I know four years seems like a long time when we're kids, but I bet he's thinking 8 would be nice. >>>> Your idea of "safe" is a sad one, my friend. >>> >>> Sad? No US attacks for seven years is sad? >> >> Is that how you gauge safety? Then, yes, that is sad. I know I >> haven't felt very safe... sorta a deep fear, not the simple one of "oh >> no, I could die"... but one of "our core values, what's happening to >> them" (much worse than death). > > You're in NM, probably not one of the top 40 states for an attack. So > what's you're fear, some tech will listen to you're phone call by > accident thinking you're chatting with al Qaeda and find out you want > to cop an eight ball? Or are you freaked because for 90 seconds we > made KSM shit himself and saved hundreds if not thousands of lives > because of it. It's not inhumane what we did to him, it's inhumane > what he did to everyone in the world that watched the events of that > day. There's the emotional response, and then there's the intellect-based response. Because we're a nation of laws (not men), the intellect-based is what we stick to. There's some pretty obvious levels of logic behind the "we don't torture" mantra, my friend. I know you're pissed at the bad people for doing the bad things, but that doesn't give us the right to bust what amounts to vigilante justice. There's a reason why vigilante justice is frowned upon -- why we no longer "round up a posse" and whatnot. NM might not be high on "terrorist" hit-lists, but we're up there in regards to foreign government "interest". If things went new-clear, we're like #2. Is is better to be true to yourself and your principals, risking death... or to "live" and give it all up? (Liberty or death! ;]) (or, "should we negotiate with terrorists", perhaps) Is it better we die, than become that which we fear? >> I'm not sure if I got this comment or not, but, if I did: I'm tired >> of the last 8 years, man. The polarization, the lack of >> communication, the (to put it lightly) lack of transparency. > > Polarization was done by the press and people like you that are dead > set against anything Bush did but seem to be OK with it when the Dems > do it. > > Did you see how Obama is treating the press? After they bent over > backwards to get him elected. He calls them in advance telling them > which ones can ask questions? Remember the outrage when Bush moved > Helen Thomas back a row? Then Obama stared down the Politico reporter > for daring to ask an unscripted question? The question about breaking > his own lobbing rule on day one. Faith baby. I'd like to see the numbers, but so far, it looks like he's doing better "disclosure" wise than Bush did (and this is like two days in!). The freaking economic bill and whatnot has been posted on the web, for the general public to see, even. Now *that's* refreshing! Talk about putting the onus on the people! >> Obama has a lot of "credit" to spend, but instead of being all one >> sided (IMO) he's put his money where his mouth is, using teamwork and >> whatnot. Yay! A president who doesn't want to be the end all, be >> all. How refreshing. > > Teamwork? When discussing the stimulus with republicans he said: "I > won the election." I think he's too smart to throw his weight around like that, but maybe you're right. Are you talking about all the "crap" that got tacked onto the economic stimulus bill, which virtually assured no republican votes? Why not toss headstart and whatnot in there? I see that stuff as infrastructure. I'm no fan of big spending, but what the hell man, we've already gone way over the edge. Might as well use some of those freshly-printed dollars for bake-sales, vs. bombs (or however that saying goes). Spending on education and whatnot will at least get us a direct return on our money (and one that keeps on giving). >> ??? Yes, lets hope his ideas fail, that would be so cool! ??? > > Do you want him to spend another $Trillion on pork disguised as > stimulus that won't even be spent for two years? We're already in la-la land, thanks to people who supported the last administration, so, why not? And just /think/ of the interest on a few $Trillion! (/me has been thinking about the interest since we started spending money like it was going out of style) >> I love to be open to ideas. The ideas that I hear Rush espousing, >> tho, for instance: come on, they're stale, and predicable. He uses >> opinion like it's fact. Who the fsck is he to judge other people? >> (Which is kinda funny, cuz, like, who the fsck am I to judge him, >> right? I'm not judging tho, just opinionating. He's free to be what >> he wants to be, and I'm like, way down for that, so... yeah. =]) > > So you're saying Obama shouldn't be judged as president? If he is the > commentators need to be vetted? Don't attack the messenger and all > that. Look, there's ways to be constructive about it, and then there are ways to be polarizing and money-generating. Guess which ones are more fun? Hey, what do you think about the "we have to support him because he's black" comment? I mean, dude, for someone as "patriotic" as Rush and his followers are, you'd think they'd have more respect for the office. We know from Clinton that ain't so tho (how I wish the tit-for-tat crap would end... yet, there I am, bringing up Bill!). >> A lot of power is in perception. I'm not saying it's the end-all, >> be-all, but, how does that saying go? 90% attitude? With all his >> followers, just think what Rush could do to bring the country >> together! He could even be all smart, and bust an "SLC Punk" type >> deal, where he gets his ideas /in there/ instead of dashing them >> against the sides, as it were... > > You want him to say what you want to hear, I think he's saying what > you need to hear but refuse to. Maybe if I was some extremist-lefty, I'd "need" to hear him say such to be "balanced" (tho that's a fallacy-- balance doesn't come from two extremes, it's more between two extremes, sorta)... Take a second and watch how the people on PBS say it (Newshour and whatnot). They don't fawn over anyone, or hate on anyone, and really come off as balanced and whatnot. But they are not entertainers. >> Not so. Some of your acrobatics quite impress me. You've made good >> arguments. But what I'm getting at is beyond "good arguments"... >> maybe it's about principals. > > We see things different and you need to stop being so critical of my vision. Sorry for being so critical. I get excited about the stuff is all. I don't mean no harm. .... > The love affair with Obama is sickening and FoxNews is the only one > asking real questions. > And that bothers you. I'm not so sure the media love-fest is still going on, but anyways: FoxNews questions don't bother me on the philosophical front, more the are an affront to my intelligence. It seems like they are part of the crowd that has supported and helps enable a lot of the things I consider harmful to America. The facts are crazy enough without spin... quantum physics tells us "no spin zones" are non-existent, but added spin (O'Reilly/Moore) turns people who are striving for objectivity (the impossible dream) off. >> If there's one thing I'm sure of (wait, let me run the numbers >> again... yup), it's that there's always a way. >> >> When you have buy-in it *is* generally a little easier, and more >> likely to succeed, long-term. > > You lost me. We're more likely to succeed, if we believe we will succeed. Belief may not turn a brick into a pillow, but studies suggest that it does affect (effect?) reality. I'm not saying you have to drink the cool-aid, I'm just suggesting that sometimes, it's just water and powdered juice concentrate. Let us support this guy until we're sure he's tripping (which did not stop support for Bush 43, but I digress ;]). It's too early to be sure, is all I'm saying. -- It is impossible to love and to be wise. Francis Bacon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:286475 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
