Monday Open Thread
Obama visits the White House today. He also plans on rolling back some of the executive orders
and giving Gitmo detainees US trials
.
Submitted by Specter on Mon, 2008-11-10 10:44
Tags:
Obama visits the White House today. He also plans on rolling back some of the executive orders
and giving Gitmo detainees US trials
.
Comments :
thanks man
You beat me! Is he going to actually close GITMO? What are the GWOT changes do you think he will implement?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well... what do ya know... a politician who intends to follow
through on a campaign promise.
GITMO should be closed.
Elections have consequences.... the main one being that the winner gets to try to do what he said he would.
I survived the Bush Administration
Don't worry.
I'll start the clock ticking the minute he takes his oath. We'll start a torture clock to count the minutes since he took his oath until he puts an end to the suffering and lets the terrorists run free.
UPDATE:
The more I think about it, these innocent waifs at Gitmo will have suffered enough under the heinous rein of Bush. P. Barry will have the power to issue pardons for them all day one. Let's see how serious he really is.
UPDATE II:
Oh well, it looks like he might be getting cold feet on this already. But how can he just abandon these poor people, doesn't he realize he was elected to stop the madness?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4um.. "Close GITMO" is NOT equivalent to "Let terrorists go free"
No matter how you try to spin it.
There are 255 detainees in GITMO.
Give them all trials. Those that are found guilty, give them the appropriate punishment - even up to the death penalty where warranted.
Those that are found NOT guilty, extradite them to their home countries, since a court would have found that they have done nothing wrong.
Why is it, exactly, that you are afraid of giving these people trials? If the evidence is so strong of their guilt, then you should be welcoming it, as they would then get their just punishments.
After being in captivity for 6 or 7 years, they certainly don't have any intelligence information that is worth a damn now. So what is the basis of holding them without a trial?
Are you really against the idea of their guilt or innocence being established? What evidence can you present that all 255 are guilty? If such evidence exists, then you surely would be in FAVOR of them getting speedy trials... right?
RIGHT?
Even Saddam Hussein got a trial. Was found guilty. And hanged. Why is it that right-wingers like yourself hate the American system of justice so much?
Why do you hate the system laid down by our founding fathers, GR?
Why do you hate America?
I survived the Bush Administration
Ha, this topic has been beat to death.
You now why public trials won't work in these cases given the classified information involved. Military tribunals are the way to go.
But if P. Barry just gives them all pardons it will all be moot to begin with. Clean. No muss, no fuss. But does he have the guts to follow through? I hear he has a spine of steel and you know the people protesting Gitmo would want him to, so he should, right?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Some at Gitmo have done nothing related to terrorism.
Or the US could treat al-Qaeda and similar foreign paramilitary/terrorist groups like a nation state and keep POWs as long as their associated groups are still fighting.
But then then US might have stop doing things such mock executions and waterboading.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I bet there's a lot of information that's needlessly classified
Bin Laden's probably driving a cab in L.A., and if some of this stuff was declassified and made public in a trial, one of his rides would be able to put 2 and 2 together. But of course the multi-billion dollar cottage industry that is our intelligence operation needs to keep a huge volume of secrets to justify its own existence...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
One more point
How many of the detainees in GITMO will end up looking back fondly on their time there after they are placed in federal penitentiaries in Chicago, Albuquerque, and Charlotte?
I think their fellow prisoners in those facilities might not look too kindly on them.
Google: Jeffrey Dahmer
Believe me... those found guilty in our courts will WISH they were still in GITMO.
Those found innocent, we have no business holding any longer.
The GWOT can't be won until and unless we start winning the war of global opinion. We took a big step in that direction last Tuesday. Closing GITMO is the next big step.
I survived the Bush Administration
Isn't that a little esoteric
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Well, seeing is believing.
"Well...what do ya know...a politicians who intends to follow through on a campaign promise"
The closing of GITMO would be an excellent start, but I wouldn't jump the gun and automatically assume that Barack Obama will live up to the promises that he's made so far once he takes office. Let's see what the guy does, first. Seeing is believing, imho.
+4
n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Old News, but....
The US still occupies part of Cuba over a century after the Spanish American War.
Russia has recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent countries and plans to base nearly 4,000 troops in each region.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
What is this all about? The
What is this
all about?
A billion here, a billion there...who's counting anymore?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Not knowing where the money is going will undermine public confidence in the system.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
it's all a fraud
When you state it like that, this is one more item pushing me towards thinking that our entire financial/economic system is built on fraud; once people realize what is really happening, the entire system will collapse.
Hey, don't call me an alarmist -- I'm just paraphrasing Talbott.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
It's about
keeping banks from knowing which banks are getting 'special favors'. IN essence the Fed is assessing which banks they believe have a reasonably sound bottom line, so they can be saved.
If the world knew the names it would do a lot of harm to the non-preferred banks or something about competition. It's too complicated for us to know. It would cause us harm!
Isn't this just insane. The billions (trillions) are still being paid out to get rid of the toxic leveraged paper that was spread around the world. The amount of that leverage was estimated at 58- 63 Trillion. The stock market fall is happening because hedge funders are having to meet their obligations with real cash, not leveraged games.
It's so very very very messed up.
Since they are just throwing money around....... I am going to have a tempter tantrum. I want my economic stimulus package. If these crooks can get free money for being crooks, then I want some free money!!!
I'm only half stupid
Minnesota Ripe for Election Fraud
Simply amazing, but totally unsurprising. Just like the 2006 Washington State gubernatorial, the Democrat controlled precincts are mysteriously finding "uncounted votes" for the Democrat candidate. This despite the fact that one would expect that a Democrat controlled precinct would have a tendency to be "lax with counting Republican" votes, not Democrat ones.
How can we continue allow this obvious type of fraud continue?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4American democracy
Clearly we need some impartial UN observers to certify our election process!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Republicans must be anarchists
This incessant beating of the "electoral fraud" drum is just spreading the anarchist message -- a "democratic state" is an oxymoron, thereby invalidating our conventional wisdom regarding the legitimacy of the state.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Coleman is goin' down. Long live Senator Franken.
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot & Lying Liars are some of the funniest books I've read & worth kicking Coleman's ass to boot.
This is based on some juicy inside the party information?
n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4if you want an alternative hypothesis (re MN elections)
The article I read didn't discuss the details of where the votes were coming from, but lets assume that Democrat-leaning precincts are adding additional votes to their tallies. One explanation is that these districts simply make more mistakes, and tend to mis more votes on their first tally. This is reasonable if they have more voters per polling place (citys vs. small towns), or more first-time voters, or more of any other complication that makes the job hard for the poll workers.
I don't know about MN, but polling places in PA are typically run by a committee made up of members of both major parties
...so you need some evidence if you are going to assert that any of these places are "Democrat controlled".
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
What a surprise: Something
What a surprise: Something happens that is detrimental to his side's candidates chances and GR immediately assumes fraud must be occurring. Needless to say, if the opposite were happening he would take the opposite position. Obviously yet another example of mindless, knee-jerk hyperpartisanship that, amazingly, some people are not embarrassed to exhibit (or even to exhibit on a consistent basis). Get a grip, GR.
I think you have me confused with the author of the piece ...
that I quoted above. Get a clue, BR.
Even so, there is certainly smoke here so I assume that as an advocate for free and fair elections you would support an investigation into the matter? Especially given the Democrat history of voting dead people and finding mysterious votes in Washington State (not to mention Florida 2000 where they tried to steal the POTUS slot) ... and that the largest "discrepencies" are occuring almost universally in Democrat precincts and in support of the Democrat candidate.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Did YOU not say How can we
Did YOU not say
??????????????
Are you just stupid or are you dishonest plus too stupid to realize that it's obvious to all (or so one would hope) when you say things that are obvious bullsh*t?
I politely disagree
[Title changed from You're the "stupid one" ... that much is obvious.]
"I" didn't immediately assume anything. The issue of fraud was brought up by the author of the quoted article. So, technically, I didn't assume anything ... and neither did they. They concluded it was likely based on an analysis of the facts. Those are DIFFERENT things, BTW, and any rational thinker would know that.
For my part I was merely expressing my dismay at the blatant behavior of the Democrats and expressing my righteous indignation that this type of thing is allowed to continue.
What's up with you and skymutt lately? You guys DO understand that words have actual meanings, right? They don't just mean what you intend them to mean, you have to use the correctly if you want to be understood. :)
You seem to have fallen, again, smack off the clue bus there, BR.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I refer you back to my prior
I refer you back to my prior comment (http://swordscrossed.org/story/20081110/monday-open-thread#comment-100577
). It serves as an appropriate response to yet another comment of yours as you compound the ridiculousness of each comment with yet another bunch of idiotic and perhaps also disingenuous blather.
You explicitly claim that "obvious fraud" is occurring. Then you pretend you didn't, and that anyone saying you did must be (cluelessly) confusing you with some other folks you have quoted. Then, when you are quoted back to yourself, obviously claiming fraud, you try to pretend that you were saying something else (and so were they). And then...and here's the kicker! -- you ironically lecture others on the need to be cognizant of the fact that words have actual meanings (this from the guy who can only claim to have been misunderstood in this case if he has his own definitions of words, and from the same guy who lamely argues insistently that there are no rules to grammar and/or no authorities on proper grammar -- that it's all in the eye of the beholder, a matter of mere preference).
Ha!! You are a piece of work, man. LOL!!
Liar. You need to follow the conversations a little better.
Remember, words have meanings. Where have I ever argued that there are no rules to grammar nor authorities on proper grammar. Style guides are NOT about grammar. Get a clue because your blatant ignorance is on display ... again.
Where have I claimed to have my own definitions of words. I consistently use the dictionary definitions of words and I have on many occasions demonstrated that fact by illustrating how my opponents were using words inappropriately and/or without regard to their true meanings.
Take, for example, your use of the word grammar above. You obviously don't know what the word means or you wouldn't be under the mistaken impression that a Style Guide has anything to do with the rules of grammar.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, I'm not going to spend
Well, I'm not going to spend much more time dealing with your silliness today, but just for the heck of it…
You quote me:
And you respond:
dumbdumbfellow poster? You keep digging yourself in deeper, but I suppose you'll want to keep digging until you reach the Earth's core, so go ahead.I was gonna edit
the whole string of comments above to take out personal attacks characterizing the poster rather than the post, but I gave up.
You two have fun, but maybe going forward show a little creativity and at least transform direct insults into commentary on the post, e.g. "What an unusual argument" instead of "god you're stupid" =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
heh, sorry Brendan. I'll try
heh, sorry Brendan. I'll try to take your advice.
Heh, I appreciate your intent but object to your execution ...
I notice the biased manner in which you were editing things above. Your first edit seems to have been to edit my title here
:
like that was the first example of a personal attack. Let me recount the flow of events here:
(1) My original comment
contain no personal attacks nor any references to BR.
(2) BR resonded with:
(3) I merely responded in kind with:
(4) BR escalates with:
(5) I again merely responded with a comparable level of incivility:
(6) BR responded with (note that the entire post is nothing but a personal attack):
(7) I, again, responded with a comparable level of incivility:
(8) BR continued:
To which I have not responded at this point. I have called BR on an outright lie and provided evidence of such here
. I would appreciate some sort of response on your part to the above facts and chronology.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Geez, man, chill out.
Geez, man, chill out. I really don't think Brendan was implying that you started the personal attacks. And I doubt he's given you any reason to suspect he's inclined toward bias in his moderation. You won't find a fairer mod anywhere in the blogosphere. So don't be so presumptuous and insulting toward him. If you felt compelled to point out that I started the personal attacks, you could have just done so (and you'd be correct). No need to get paranoid and insulting toward Brendan.
Heh
Brownnose much? :-)
<runs away>
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Heh, if that was even 1%
Heh, if that was even 1% serious, you're obviously not familiar with my comments on other blogs. I'm about as far from a mod brown-noser as it gets, Mr. Mutt.
Except for me, apparantly.
:-P
Hey, Brendan and I have a fairly long history. We get along fine. You people are way too touchy, nothing I said here is particularly objectionable or pointy w.r.t. Brendan. I just wanted to keep the record straight and get some sort of clarification of his actual intent based on the facts as clearly laid out here.
I don't have a quarrel with Brendan, per se. I just want to keep things square and get some feedback that they are.
Geeze.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GR, three little words come to mind
Get a life!
I stand corrected on this ...
I did, in fact, misread your comment. I agree that the original comment was conditional.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This is an outright lie.
I have consistently maintained that there is a distinction between the rules of grammar for the English language and the conventions for things such as capitalization of proper nouns as codified in any number of (potentially conflicting) style guides. I repeat, style guides are NOT grammar guides. This is a point I have made in numerous places of which this is one
:
So, bottom line, limit your statement above to style guides
[1] and I will admit to claiming that they are subjective and non-binding. I have never made such a claim regarding the rules of grammar 
[2] as you clearly are trying to claim above.
---------------------------------------------------------
[1] Style Guides:
A style guide or style manual is a set of standards for design and writing of documents, either for general use or for a specific publication or organization. Style guides are prevalent for general and specialized use, for the general reading and writing audience, and for students and scholars of the various academic disciplines, medicine, journalism, the law, government, business, and industry. Some style guides focus on graphic design, covering such topics as typography and white space.
[2] Rules of Grammar:
Grammar is the field of linguistics that covers the rules governing the use of any given natural language. It includes morphology and syntax, often complemented by phonetics, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics.
Each language has its own distinct grammar. "English grammar" is the rules of the English language itself. "An English grammar" is a specific study or analysis of these rules. A reference book describing the grammar of a language is called a "reference grammar" or simply "a grammar". A fully explicit grammar exhaustively describing the grammatical constructions of a language is called a descriptive grammar, as opposed to linguistic prescription which tries to enforce the governing rules how a language is to be used.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Related note
Ted Stevens is now losing by 3 votes
!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Sarah on her cowardly critics ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Some people still are under the impression that anyone gives a
damn about Sarah Palin.
By 2012, you'll look back on her as the nobody she really is.
But I hope I'm wrong. I sincerely hope she *IS* the GOP nominee in 2012.
I survived the Bush Administration
Maybe she'll run for
Maybe she'll run for President of Africa.
Can we count on you to cross over in the 2012 primary?
n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No
A)
In PA, I would have to change my registration to cross over.
B)
Unlike Republicans, I'm not interested in trying to play games with the other party's nomination process.
I believe that those who hold dear the tenets of a political party's philosophy should be left alone to decide on who they want representing their interests.
It's a pity that Republicans don't share that viewpoint, but instead engage in "Operation Chaos" -type actions.
Since most Republicans feel that the fault for their loss lies in McCain's non-conservatism.... perhaps they should've spent more time and effort defeating him in the primaries instead of trying to muck with the Democratic Party's process.
I survived the Bush Administration
Heh, predictably one-sided.
The only reason the WAS an Operation Chaos is because of cross over Democrats and Independents mucking up the Republican primaries. Note that operation chaos only occurred AFTER McCain was inevitable and so it no longer mattered from the Republican primary perspective. The Democrats can't make such a claim, and indeed without them crossing over McCain likely wouldn't have been the nominee.
They reaped what they sowed. Wankers.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4A bit of a difference, I'd say
With possibly the exception of the Michigan primary (which did not matter from the Democratic primary perspective), where Kos idiotically and ineffectively (IMHO) tried to organize a "mess with Republicans" vote for Romney, the goal of the Democrats crossing over was to vote for the person they honestly believed would make a good president, McCain. And they were deciding to do that on an individual basis, not being cheered on by some fool whose stated goal was to "have a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that."
Also, IMHO, McCain is the only Republican who had a ghost of a chance this year. He clearly had the support of the base by election day, and I don't see any of the other candidates having as much appeal to independents. You may not agree, but I'm just stating my opinion.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I don't know about that
I think she might have talk radio behind her. I don't think most Republicans are influenced by talk-radio, but if talk radio, but if they were unified I think they might be able to obtain a plurality for a canidate. Not that I think talk-radio going to totally support her, but there does seem to be that support now, which helping her initial image among Republicans
Bathrobe/towel allegation about Palin was a lie.
This was confirmed at:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This still does not
negate her opinion that being able to see Russia equals foreign policy experience.
Or the Katie Couric interviews.
Or the Charlie Gibson interviews.
Or her McCarthy-like campaign rhetoric.
Or Wardrobe gate.
Or her husbands membership and her relationship with AIP a semi-militant secessionist movement.
I'm only half stupid
Guilt by association.
I cannot believe that Palin would associate herself with Aids that went on a shopping spree. If she would let those under her go wild spending money, what kind of fiscal conservative would she make in office?
She'd be going wild spending money on iceberg water, gold catcher glove chains for her friends, and a exhibition game with the New York Yankees.
But applying GR's Golden Rule:
If a candidate cannot have the slogan of "Two America's" and have a $400 haircut
Then surely a candidate cannot run as being Fiscal Conservative and have a $150,000+ wardrobe.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
More Sarah in 2012?
You go girl! Star power. That's the way to the white house. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not again!
What, is she going to have another one in three years? :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I liked this part ...
I can hear skymutt and ML groaning already! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4At the very least...
... no one can accuse her of riding her husband's coattails to political prominence.
Oh, snap! Apologies to any Hillary supporters out there.
(As further apologies, I don't think Governor Palin, at this point anyway, can hold a candle to Senator Clinton's accomplishments, knowledge or political acumen. I personally don't think she will ever be comparable to Clinton as far as intelligence/knowledge is concerned, but she may yet prove to have political acumen.)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No question
she has a disarming style and charm, kind of like Forest Gump. :)
Unless you were living in a cave, it has been glaringly apparent that she is insanely popular with the a certain faction of the GOP base.
I'm only half stupid
MSNBC is out of control
Morning Joe Scarborough Drops The F-Bomb
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Wow.
I hope he doesn't get in trouble for that. Though he could have just said "F-U" and everyone would have understood.
Very moving TV program
Worth viewing this program online http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/godontrial/watch/video.html?ep=1&chap=0
or on TV if you can catch it airing again. I found it gripping, moving and definitely worth watching, and I say that as someone with an interest only in the human aspect rather than in any theological questions per se, nor am I recommending it to make any point regarding religious faith. I often express my lack of regard for religious faith, but again, I am not recommending this program for any reason connected with any such point (nor does my agnosticism have anything to do with arguments you'll see presented).
The program will also be on PBS again, on the New York City PBS affiliate on Thursday 1am and I assume on other PBS affiliates this week as well.
Can you summarize it? NT.
NT.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/maste
Trailer and brief description http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/godontrial/index.html
Synopsis http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/godontrial/synopsis.html
Off Topic
I'll be watching this, but the intro by Matthew Good got my mind on a tangent.
Matthew Good Band - Anti-Pop not to confused with Anti-Pope
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,