Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You pose a question of some difficulty here...Hmmmm:
Quote:
...yet the POTUS Obama says they will fry.....who do I believe...hmmm a city-data poster, or the president....hmm
Considering his track record...Hmmmm
The Oba-monster in 2003, talking to the AFL/CIO:“I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare coverage. That’s what I’d like to see.”
Then in January, 2008, Obama claimed in a nationally televised debate:”I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer.” Huh!
Return with me now to the thrilling year of 2007 and consider Obama’s stirring tale for the Selma audience about how he had been conceived by his parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, because they had been inspired by the fervor following the “Bloody Sunday” voting rights demonstration that was commemorated March 4. “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama,” he said, “because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama”. Oops! Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march occurred four years later, in 1965. The New York Times reported that when the senator was asked about the discrepancy later that day, he clarified: “I meant the whole civil rights movement.”
On March 25th of 2007, the Chicago Tribune reports that an extensive search found no basis for an episode Obama recounts about a picture he ran across in Life magazine of a “black man who had tried to peel off his skin” in a failed effort to use chemicals to lighten it. Obama writes that “seeing that article was violent for me, an ambush attack.”The Tribune continued: “Yet no such Life issue exists, according to historians at the magazine. No such photos, no such article. When asked about the discrepancy, Obama said in a recent interview, “It might have been an Ebony or it might have been … who knows what it was?”At the request of the Tribune, archivists at Ebony searched their catalogue of past articles, none of which matched what Obama recalled.”
2007 was another good year for ' lies with those fries' from Obama as on May 10th, Obama botched his facts in a speech criticizing the U.S. auto industry for “investing in bigger and faster cars while foreign competitors invested in more fuel-efficient technology.”Obama stated that “while our fuel standards haven’t moved from 27.5 miles per gallon in two decades, both China and Japan have surpassed us, with Japanese cars now getting an average of 45 miles to the gallon.” But Toyota, which should know, has responded, “No carmaker gets 45 mpg; ours is closer to 30 mpg.”Well, we’re glad to see Obama’s shifting the blame from the consumer to the automakers. That must explain why the Illinois Senator and Presidential candidate owns a HEMI-powered V8 Chrysler 300C. Obviously it’s Chrysler’s fault Obama bought a big 5.7-liter engine from them — he just didn’t have a choice. Sort of like Chrysler not having a choice later on in 2009 when the Oba-monster got even...Oops!
In the fall of that same year during a nationally televised presidential debate, Obama hesitantly raised his hand and joined with most of his Democratic rivals to declare that he opposed decriminalizing marijuana. (first video).But as a candidate for the U.S. Senate four years ago, Mr. Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession, according to a videotape of a little noticed debate that was obtained by The Washington Times.”I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws,” Mr. Obama told an audience during a debate at Northwestern University in 2004. “But I’m not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana.” (second video). Asked about the two different answers, Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign said he in fact has “always” supported decriminalizing marijuana as he answered in 2004, meaning the candidate mistakenly raised his hand during the presidential debate last fall. Y' think he was playin' politics with that little lie?
On March 2nd, 2008, Obama told another whopper while criticizing Hillary Clinton. Obama said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and, after a brief pause, said the then-chairman had voted against the war resolution. However, Rockefeller was not the chair at the time and voted in favor of the war authorization. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was the intelligence committee chair in 2002 and voted against the resolution. Obama did not mention Graham’s name in the passage. His exact words are, “She didn’t read the National Intelligence Estimates. Jay Rockefeller read it. But she didn’t read it. I don’t know what all that experience got her because I have enough experience to know that if you have a National Intelligence Estimate and the chairman of the national, um, Senate Intelligence Committee says you should read this, this is why I’m voting against the war, that you should probably read it. I don’t know how much experience you need for that.”
And I haven't even got to all his campaign and presidential lying... I think that YES..., I'd put more faith in a rational conservative city-data poster than in Obama.
By the way, if he did say that they'd fry...How does he know that with such certainty BEFORE a trial is even convened? Oh..that's right, another lie for my long list...Thanks bro. :thumbs-up: ROTFLMAO
I'd rather listen to her, who supports America and it's military, than Joy or yourself who seem to support our nation's enemies over our own military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tekka-maki
Does anyone cringe when Elizabeth Hasslebeck talks politics? Yap, yap, yap - dumb. I'm watching her on the corner of my workstation & she's going ballistic right now! Apparently, she (& many others) are under the impression that ALL Get-Mo detainees are 'terrorists', but the fact of the matter is that the majority of these people (700+ not even charged or released under Bush) were innocent & if anything we've grown terrorists by unlawful incarceration for YEARS. Those that are being charged have some of the most frivolous charges after years of unlawful incarceration that trying them in a Military Tribunal would be insult to injury. I posted about this in vivid detail before from the folks on the ground at Get-Mo!
Why do these ignorant pundits feed the stupidity so much? Why would they talk about something they know nothing about and just feed off blind emotions?
I'm talking about what the government has been explaining to the country about GITMO and the need for it (which has been mostly from the previous administration) since they started using it for holding the detainees there.....I'm not talking about anything specific.
Do tell! What do you think that the 'Gov't' specifically been explaining and how does that differ from what I've said? I'm allll ears...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno3314
Your facts are being relayed by a defense attorney to the public....he's hardly the military....he has an agenda, which includes building public support for the release of whom ever he'll be defending....that's part of his job (especially in this situation with the whole world watching), if he didn't he wouldn't be much of a defense attorney.
1st of all he's not their attorney per se. He's not defending each case individually. 2nd, as I've said ad nauseam, these are statistics that aren't in question, but actually provided from, the military and relayed by DoD. So which one in particular do you think is false?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno3314
I'm not ignoring any facts to be neutral or objective....I'm neutral because I'm not jumping to any conclusions based on what either side claims at this point because,
O.k., once you explain in specifics what you think the other side's legitimate claims are that are contradictory to what I've said, we'll continue this charade. It's kinda nonsensical otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno3314
I'm not disputing the facts Shayana Kadidal has relayed to the public, I'm saying I'm not going to jump to any conclusions over them and say things like, "the fact of the matter is that the majority of these people......" the way you have. Is what you're saying about the MAJORITY of those people, also a fact that has been supplied by the military......that's what you're claiming, isn't it....that it's a fact concerning the MAJORITY.
The purpose of a tribunal (or a trial for that matter) is to determine is they're guilty of any charges and/or what they did to be found guilty (if that's what determined). Among other things it will determine just how frivolous what they're being accused of actually is (if at all) but, you've already determined that some of them are so frivolous that a tribunal would be an insult. That may end up being the case with some of them but, I can't assume that now....not with any certainty.
Look senor. You're getting all confused here. The majority of detainees have been let go. Yes this was reported by boots on ground (as well as aforementioned) and DoD. We are talking past tense. I'm saying (and is reported) that most have been let go; many more will be let go; and many will not see serious charges. These FACTS are are indisputable and are not a secret to anyone but you, and a few others that appear to be equally ignorant to the issue at hand. f you spent 2 minutes of your time searching for this data instead of waiting for Fox News to spoon feed it to you, you'd know.
I think these numbers are slightly off, yet still easily concur w/ 'majority' but here's another source for you: Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. In January 2009, approximately 245 detainees remained.[15] This number further decreased to 215 by November 2009.
Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.
Maybe what I'm 'alleging' is true, is merely an illusion and in addition to global sec (and various other sources provided on wiki above) the following are ALL IN ON IT:
Shayana Kadidal, senior managing attorney for the Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative at the Center for Constitutional Rights
Glenn Sulmasy, national security fellow at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government; judge advocate and law professor, U.S. Coast Guard Academy
John Hutson, adviser to Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign; president and dean, Franklin Pierce Law Center; former judge advocate general for the U.S. Navy
Kori Schake, foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign
...in addition to the DoD announcements & the many others that have undoubtedly relayed the same information to the masses. After all, if Hasslebeck, OReilly, Hannity, and Beck aren't reporting these things, it can't be true right?
Last edited by tekka-maki; 02-10-2010 at 08:55 AM..
I'd rather listen to her, who supports America and it's military, than Joy or yourself who seem to support our nation's enemies over our own military.
That's harsh. With the reasoning skills you and a few others are using, it's no wonder you've arrived at this conclusion! Eek, there are a lot of things that statements says, but supporting America or its military isn't one of 'em. If anything, believing such hyperbole and baseless information kills more troops and weakens our country to ideologies that are emboldened by such propaganda abroad. But you keep keep being a Patriot! Bad government policies are best left unchallenged and abetted right? Isn't that what our fore fathers advocated... oh wait!
Last edited by tekka-maki; 02-10-2010 at 09:15 AM..
That is your opinion and in no way is it a fact. How many people being held at GTMO (the proper abbreviation for Naval Base Guantanamo Bay) can you name without looking it up? I'm guessing two at the most.
Feel free to clarify that your post is your opinion and never claim facts without offering something besides a CD post to back it up. It looks extremely ignorant.
Uhh... what is an opinion exactly? The numbers the military, various inquiries, or the administration provided and that I relayed?? Interesting... must be a conspiracy of self-loath by our leaders! Keep on keeping 'it' alive. and see my last post. Sorry your favorite news channel hasn't gotten around to spoon feeding to you that which our entire Gov't already reported. What... do you think they're going to brag about such a failure? It doesn't take an analyst to ascertain that this isn't a popular topic to talk about since 'Gitmo' (i.e. I'll call it whatever I please) isn't exactly a success story, by any metric. In fact, when you look at these numbers alone, combined with number that are *supposedly* joining terrorist cells; people who weren't apprehended on a battle field and who weren't IN terrorism prior to (former reported; latter inferred by the lack of charges despite numerous attempts in an administrative system which has so far greatly favored our Gov't!), then that place has actually done far more harm than good. The only blatant exceptions are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and Walid Bin Attash; and even then you have to ask yourself if Guantanamo was necessary to apprehend these perps. I reckon that's a capital N-o-t.
As far as your suggestion, I don't feel compelled to list individual incarcerated names because it serves no purpose nor is it necessary to substantiate anything I've already said.
Last edited by tekka-maki; 02-10-2010 at 09:07 AM..
Do you really think the Gitmo residents were just picked up for the heck of it, because we're so mean and want to hassle innocent people?
Precisely! Except... the United States military did not pick up most of the detainees. Mostly rivaling factions, warlords, greedy Governments w/ no conscience... heck maybe even disgruntled co-workers turned people in because they were given monetary incentive to do so. The sheer number incarcerated then released substantiates very little, if any, due diligence. The notion that most of these people were picked up on anything resembling a battlefield is a complete farce. Even fewer picked up by U.S. soldiers. Forget the number but transcript is on my original link; I think it was ~3%. This is another misconception by the clueless pseudo-patriotic masses, no doubt perpetuated by faux news television, not that the liberal news channels reported this either. These days, if you wanna know the truth of the matter, you have to necessarily seek it.
I think that she gets a fax from the Republican party every morning with talking points. She drives me nuts.
Of course she does. It's no accident that all the Republican media stars talk about the same topics on any given day, using the exact phrasing and buzz words. She doesn't bother me because she's balanced with liberal Joy. I don't believe a word coming out of her mouth but I respect her for being willing to debate with liberals and she holds her own....unlike Rush and Beck who only talk within their own species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan.
The View would lose ratings if Elizabeth was not on the show. She is eye candy. And it's even better when eye-candy has an attitude. I don't think she is very knowledgeable but I certainly don't think she is any less knowledgeable than Whoopi Goldberg or Joy Behar. Barbara Walters is the only one on that show that seems to have any clue what is going on.
She is often ganged up upon because she is the only conservative. And I think most of the time she makes valid points but her tone and approach is so offensive that you end up wanting to disagree with her. When she gets ganged up upon, she gets defensive and can be very aggressive in attacking. Sure, you could argue, she has a right to do that if she is being picked on. And I agree that she does have that right. At the same time, it doesn't serve her well because in her angry retorts, she just comes accross as being vindictive and mean. She doesn't know how to be graceful in these situations.
I agree on most of your points.
Last edited by Wayland Woman; 02-15-2010 at 03:55 PM..
I agree - Megan McCain would be perfect - she knows how to argue her point yet maintained professionalism = Elizabeth could make her points better if she didn't act like a spoiled little girl who has to have her way when she disagrees with something - she often compares apples with oranges and over states her position
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnolia Bloom
When not discussing politics, Elizabeth is good on the show. But it would be good to have someone with an opposing view that has more political knowledge and intelligence. Elizabeth is uninformed and a lightweight, but is too young to know to chill when she gets in over her head. She just loses it and gets all selfrighteous. Her back ground is Survivor and shoe designing. I just think that is the wrong gig for her. IMO, Meghan McCain would be better in that slot.
As the man said, "FEAR IS THE MIND KILLER." These people prove it every day.
Okay, big geek that I am, the man who said that was Paul Atreides from Dune. Actually, it was a lesson from the Freemen Desert people. He also said "The Sleeper Has Awakened!"
I'll stop now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.”
we should try to go ahead and get single-payer
”The Tribune continued: “Yet no such Life issue exists, according to historians at the magazine. No such photos, no such article.
When asked about the discrepancy, Obama said in a recent interview, “It might have been an Ebony or it might have been … who knows what it was?
