The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 5:31 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:01 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Elmarnieh wrote:
He wasn't ignorant at all. He is a smart person, he knew the lie, he knew it wouldn't be fulfilled, he knew it would help him get elected so he said it.

HE IS A POLITICIAN THAT IS WHAT THEY DO.

+1

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:12 am 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Bat Country
darksiege wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Yup, like I said, the prevailing opinion around here. Enjoy your positions.


That is the most Dorian thing I have read all day.

I enjoy doggie style on occasion.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:53 am 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3099
darksiege wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Yup, like I said, the prevailing opinion around here. Enjoy your positions.


That is the most Dorian thing I have read all day.

Dammit, now you've got me doing it.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Rynar wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Rynar wrote:
Others see merit in the conversation. Why don't you?


Maybe I'm jaded, but all I see is others looking for an excuse to vent about how awful they think Obama is. I'm not really interested in enabling that behavior.


I think the idea that you are dismissing reasons as excuses is problematic. This is compounded by the fact that you refuse to engage them in discussing those reasons in order to counter them.


Actually the discussion was around specifically Gitmo. Khross in classic fashion, is trying to expand the conversation to include things not germain to the discussion and to use it as a stump on which to preach the evils of Obama. Not interested in playing, sorry.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
darksiege wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Yup, like I said, the prevailing opinion around here. Enjoy your positions.


That is the most Dorian thing I have read all day.


Not familiar with the reference, and my google-fu is weak apparently.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:46 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Aizle wrote:
Actually the discussion was around specifically Gitmo. Khross in classic fashion, is trying to expand the conversation to include things not germain to the discussion and to use it as a stump on which to preach the evils of Obama. Not interested in playing, sorry.
This post might have merit, if it weren't a blatant and egregious lie. You stated that Gitmo remains open because Obama had "bigger fish to fry". I pressed you on the issue of those bigger fish. You refuse to substantiate your defense of Obama or enlighten us as to the accomplishments that ameliorate his complete failure to deliver on Gitmo.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Khross wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Actually the discussion was around specifically Gitmo. Khross in classic fashion, is trying to expand the conversation to include things not germain to the discussion and to use it as a stump on which to preach the evils of Obama. Not interested in playing, sorry.
This post might have merit, if it weren't a blatant and egregious lie. You stated that Gitmo remains open because Obama had "bigger fish to fry". I pressed you on the issue of those bigger fish. You refuse to substantiate your defense of Obama or enlighten us as to the accomplishments that ameliorate his complete failure to deliver on Gitmo.


Nope, not a lie and you're doing it again btw. You asked about what successes Obama had and to defend them. That is not the same as having bigger fish to fry. Some of those fish haven't been "fried" yet. As for what one of those fish are, I certainly hope that we all agree that our current economic situation is a more pressing issue.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:59 am 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
It's not like he's administering too many things at once and can only do one thing at a time. The president doesn't do anything. he just "decrees" it. It's up to other people to carry it out. For obama, all he needs to do is say "Stop torturing private manning and either charge and try him, or set him free." And it gets done. There's nothing to it at all. Same with closing Gitmo. The president doesn't need the details, that's up to other people. He doesn't have "bigger fish to fry," because he has an infinite number of chefs to do all the frying he wants.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Quote:
WASHINGTON, Dec 23, 2010 (IPS) - President Barack Obama's hopes of closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility appear as far from being realised as ever in the wake of new legislation approved by Congress this week.

Wednesday's approval by the Senate of an amendment banning the use of Pentagon funds for 2011 to transfer detainees at Guantanamo, the U.S. naval base on Cuba, to the United States or its territories appears to guarantee that the facility will remain open for business at least through next September.

The House of Representatives, which passed a similar provision last week, is expected to quickly approve the Senate version.

Despite the administration's objections, the amendment is unlikely to be vetoed by Obama. It was strongly denounced by human rights groups that have campaigned for Guantanamo's closure since it first began receiving detainees allegedly captured in what became the George W. Bush administration's "global war on terror" in 2002.

At its height, it held more than 700 terrorist suspects. The facility currently holds 174 prisoners of whom 90 – most of them Yemenis – have reportedly been cleared for repatriation, and 36 are due to be prosecuted in federal courts, although, with the Senate action, that plan may now be in jeopardy.

The remaining 48 are being held indefinitely without trial because evidence of their past ties to terrorist groups is unlikely to be admissible in a court - in some cases, due to its acquisition by torture - and because the government believes that they would return to such activities if they were released.

"Today's vote will only serve to further erode the U.S. government's human rights record and hamper the administration's ability to bring terrorism suspects to justice," said Vienna Colucci, a senior policy advisor at the U.S. section of Amnesty International (AIUSA) shortly after the Senate attached the amendment to the 2011 defence authorisation bill.

"This law will also effectively prevent the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, prolonging a human rights scandal whose closure national security and foreign policy experts agree is essential to improve U.S. counter-terrorism efforts and mend the international standing of the United States," she added.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) also assailed the bill, noting that it will effectively prevent detainees, such as alleged 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, from being tried in civilian courts has said he intends to do.

Calling the Senate's action a "reckless and irresponsible affront to the rule of law", Tom Malinowski, the head of HRW's Washington office charged that "Congress has denied the president the only legally sustainable and globally legitimate means to incarcerate terrorists."

The amendment's attachment to the defence bill - which authorises the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars by the Pentagon next year - comes on the heels of a report by the investigative group Pro Publica and the Washington Post that the administration is drafting an executive order that would set up a system to periodically review the cases of Guantanamo prisoners under indefinite detention without trial.

Unlike the Bush administration's military-run "annual review boards" - the now-defunct mechanism used to assess whether such detainees could be safely repatriated - the draft plan reportedly would establish review panels whose members would be drawn from a number of different government agencies.

In addition, detainees would be represented by attorneys and gain greater access to the evidence compiled by the government against them than was the case under Bush's review boards, which were denounced by human rights and civil liberties groups as flagrant violations of elemental due process.

While praising some of the proposed changes, some of those same groups have expressed serious reservations about the reported plan.

Noting that an executive order, which can easily be modified or lifted, was preferable to a law enacted by Congress, Elisa Massimino, the director of Human Rights First said any preventive detention regime - whether administrative or legislative - "pose(s) a serious threat to fundamental rights and are no substitute for criminal justice".

"Reliance on indefinite detention as a path of least resistance is part of how we ended up in the Guantanamo mess in the first place," she said.

"Where credible evidence exists against Guantanamo detainees, they should be charged and prosecuted under our criminal justice system," added Laura Murphy, director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). She noted that federal courts have successfully completed hundreds of trials of suspected terrorists over the past decade.

During his press conference Wednesday, Obama himself stressed that he still hoped to close Guantanamo, calling it "probably the number one recruitment tool" used by al Qaeda and other "jihadist organisations".

"One of the toughest problems is what to do with people that we know are dangerous, that …have engaged in terrorist activity, are proclaimed enemies of the United States, but because of the manner in which they were originally captured, the circumstances right after 9/11 in which they (were) interrogated, it becomes difficult to try them whether in an Article III court or in a military commission," he went on, adding, "Releasing them at this stage could potentially create greater danger for the American people."

"The bottom line is that striking this balance between our security and making sure that we are consistent with our values and our Constitution is not an easy task, but ultimately that's what's required for practical reasons," he said.

The result, according to Adam Serwer, writing on a Washington Post blog, "is basically what we've come to expect from the Obama administration on security and civil liberties. Having promised to reverse the trajectory of Bush-era national security policies, Obama has settled on making them marginally more lawful and humane."

"It's not nothing, but it's not what Obama promised," he added.

Meanwhile, however, the Senate action prompted much greater concern among rights groups because it appears to rule out both Guantanamo's closure over the next year and the possibility that detainees held there will be tried in the federal courts.

That leaves the much-criticised, error-plagued military commissions, which have successfully prosecuted only five cases in the last eight years, as the only tribunal where detainees can be tried.

Attorney General Eric Holder had strongly opposed the amendment, arguing in a statement released earlier this month that it would "tak(e) away one of our most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism".

In addition to banning the transfer onto U.S. territory of any Guantanamo detainees, the amendment forbids the government from transferring them to another country unless the defence secretary certifies that such a transfer will not jeopardise U.S. security.


It would have simply taken a veto.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:36 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Aizle wrote:
Nope, not a lie and you're doing it again btw. You asked about what successes Obama had and to defend them. That is not the same as having bigger fish to fry. Some of those fish haven't been "fried" yet. As for what one of those fish are, I certainly hope that we all agree that our current economic situation is a more pressing issue.
If the fish haven't been "fried", yet; if there are no successes to defend; then your rationalization becomes exactly that: a rationalization. You've demonstrated no reason the President could not take action to fulfill that promise. You've demonstrated no material situation that would prevent him from taking action. Consequently, unless those bigger fish to fry is making Jimmy Carter's presidency look like an "epic win", this is a campaign promise both made in bad faith and broken.

It's really quite that simple, Aizle.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Talya wrote:
It's not like he's administering too many things at once and can only do one thing at a time. The president doesn't do anything. he just "decrees" it. It's up to other people to carry it out. For obama, all he needs to do is say "Stop torturing private manning and either charge and try him, or set him free." And it gets done. There's nothing to it at all. Same with closing Gitmo. The president doesn't need the details, that's up to other people. He doesn't have "bigger fish to fry," because he has an infinite number of chefs to do all the frying he wants.


LOL, that is hillariously niave.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
So if Obama does nothing throughout his entire presidency (except healthcare which might end up failing), will your claim be that he had "bigger fish to fry" the entire time?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Khross wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Nope, not a lie and you're doing it again btw. You asked about what successes Obama had and to defend them. That is not the same as having bigger fish to fry. Some of those fish haven't been "fried" yet. As for what one of those fish are, I certainly hope that we all agree that our current economic situation is a more pressing issue.
If the fish haven't been "fried", yet; if there are no successes to defend; then your rationalization becomes exactly that: a rationalization. You've demonstrated no reason the President could not take action to fulfill that promise. You've demonstrated no material situation that would prevent him from taking action. Consequently, unless those bigger fish to fry is making Jimmy Carter's presidency look like an "epic win", this is a campaign promise both made in bad faith and broken.

It's really quite that simple, Aizle.


Bullshit.

We live in a world of finite resources (I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you of all people). Those resources need to be allocated based on what is a priority for the administration. Put simply, there are several items on the list that are a higher priority for the administration than Gitmo. That means that the resources that Obama has to be able to make them a reality aren't as available to the Gitmo issue. Seriously, this is resource management 101.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
wikipedia wrote:
Ballpark estimates indicate some 2,000 to 2,500 persons serve in EOP staff positions with policy-making responsibilities, with a budget of $300 to $400 million (George W. Bush's budget request for Fiscal Year 2005 was for $341 million in support of 1,850 personnel).[2]


Hmm... I don't exactly agree with you Aizle about limited resources. EOP is Executive Office of the President.

If $341 million isn't enough to shut down Guantanamo now, how much is needed? $10 billion?


Last edited by Lex Luthor on Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:48 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Aizle:

You're not explaining anything to me; you're rationalizing the fact that Gitmo is still open, when the man specifically promised it would be closed before the end of 2009. Consequently, since "bigger fish" are higher priority resource drains, you need to demonstrate the material obstructions to keeping that promise. If you don't, or won't, you're simply rationalizing the fact that Gitmo is still open.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:51 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Aizle wrote:
darksiege wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Yup, like I said, the prevailing opinion around here. Enjoy your positions.


That is the most Dorian thing I have read all day.


Not familiar with the reference, and my google-fu is weak apparently.

Spoiler:
Image

Hehe

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:02 pm 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Aizle wrote:
Actually the discussion was around specifically Gitmo.

Actually, the discussion was specifically about PFC Manning. Interestingly, I don't think you've offered a theory on that issue.

Aizle wrote:
As for what one of those fish are, I certainly hope that we all agree that our current economic situation is a more pressing issue.

Actually, I don't. At least not with respect to this particular office. Suspension of habeas corpus is a more pressing matter to me.

A man with 7 children horribly mismanages his household finances. Also, he just stabbed a hobo. Which is a more pressing issue? Obviously the finances affect more people, but that doesn't make it more pressing.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Obama doesn't have time for human rights issues. They're clearly the last thing on his agenda.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Come on, now, folks. To be fair, Aizle has at least tried to defend his positions and support of Obama on NUMEROUS occasions.

If everytime you pet a dog it bites you in the face, eventually you will stop petting the dog.

Perhaps instead you should view the lack of desire to converse with you as a response to your treatment of differing viewpoints in the past.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:13 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3099
Aizle wrote:
Not familiar with the reference, and my google-fu is weak apparently.

It's a Scrubs reference. Zack Braff's character's last name is Dorian. Another character was associating the last name with stupid things.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Come on, now, folks. To be fair, Aizle has at least tried to defend his positions and support of Obama on NUMEROUS occasions.

If everytime you pet a dog it bites you in the face, eventually you will stop petting the dog.

Perhaps instead you should view the lack of desire to converse with you as a response to your treatment of differing viewpoints in the past.


I think it's mostly because all of his arguments are weak and make him look stupid. So he'd rather not discuss the issue.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Come on, now, folks. To be fair, Aizle has at least tried to defend his positions and support of Obama on NUMEROUS occasions.

If everytime you pet a dog it bites you in the face, eventually you will stop petting the dog.

Perhaps instead you should view the lack of desire to converse with you as a response to your treatment of differing viewpoints in the past.


Exactly.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Lex Luthor wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Come on, now, folks. To be fair, Aizle has at least tried to defend his positions and support of Obama on NUMEROUS occasions.

If everytime you pet a dog it bites you in the face, eventually you will stop petting the dog.

Perhaps instead you should view the lack of desire to converse with you as a response to your treatment of differing viewpoints in the past.


I think it's mostly because all of his arguments are weak and make him look stupid. So he'd rather not discuss the issue.


So I take it you believe your posts on this forum make you look intelligent?

Don't judge, dude.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Lex Luthor wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Come on, now, folks. To be fair, Aizle has at least tried to defend his positions and support of Obama on NUMEROUS occasions.

If everytime you pet a dog it bites you in the face, eventually you will stop petting the dog.

Perhaps instead you should view the lack of desire to converse with you as a response to your treatment of differing viewpoints in the past.


I think it's mostly because all of his arguments are weak and make him look stupid. So he'd rather not discuss the issue.


So I take it you believe your posts on this forum make you look intelligent?

Don't judge, dude.


It's not a judgement, it's an explanation.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:33 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Aizle wrote:
darksiege wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Yup, like I said, the prevailing opinion around here. Enjoy your positions.


That is the most Dorian thing I have read all day.


Not familiar with the reference, and my google-fu is weak apparently.


Honestly... I just wanted to use that saying, and you just happen to be there. Here is the reference...

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 272 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group