40 replies to this topic

[Bill Z]

It's 4 pages worth, but I think worth the read.

He gets some browny points but not many.

link to article

I had to laugh at the 3rd comment though at the end. Somehow, I doubt it is an honest comment. I expect it to be lie generated by a racist, but I won't be able to prove it.

we elected him because of his color not his experience. I will not vote for him again. I can bet money that he will not get reelected.
bestfr1303 4:24 PM

[uberman]

I for one am very disappointed in Obama for failing to deliver on closing Guantanamo, one of the biggest dangers to our national security. His failure to deliver on REAL health care reform with a public option, and instead falling prey to insurance and pharmaceutical companies. His failure to restore the American Economy and the list goes on and on.

However, at least we're not at war with Madagascar. A country with which we'd inevitably be engaged with granted McSame/Failin had won the election.

Obama truly was the lesser of two evils... I'd imagine our country would be ripped to shreds under the vice-presidency of Sarah Palin.

[The Average Joe]

"I for one am very disappointed in Obama for failing to deliver on closing Guantanamo, one of the biggest dangers to our national security."

You...can't...be...serious. If you were to argue the legality of it, I might at least give you a nod, but to suggest locking up terrorists (or causers of manmade disasters, or enemy combatants) in a secure military facility is more of a danger than say...open borders...or dirty bombs...or homegrown fanaticism...or <insert favorite boogeyman>
or letting them out makes me just shake my head.

What is your solution and how does it increase our national security by closing Gitmo?

Let them go?

House them in a civilian Guantanamo North in Illinois?

Return them to the terror networks they came from in their host countries?

[uberman]

You...can't...be...serious. If you were to argue the legality of it, I might at least give you a nod,

The legality of Gitmo is a stain upon our nation which we'll never be able to wash off. Every American should be ashamed of this country for what we've done at Gitmo. But that's a gimme.

but to suggest locking up terrorists (or causers of manmade disasters, or enemy combatants) in a secure military facility is more of a danger than say...open borders...or dirty bombs...or homegrown fanaticism...or <insert favorite boogeyman>
or letting them out makes me just shake my head.

Let them out? You think I want to let them out? Our maximum security penitentiaries are tasked with housing CONVICTED mass murderers, rapists, domestic terrorists, hell, even CANNIBALS. You're telling me that they're incapable of housing more terrorists?

What is your solution and how does it increase our national security by closing Gitmo?

Put them in maximum security prisons for the rest of their life (plus change.) Show the American people (and therefore, the world,) the evidence which convicts them.

I wonder how many innocent men are at Gitmo right now being waterboarded for knowledge they clearly don't have? The truth is, you don't know, I don't know. The fact that it's POSSIBLE is EMBARRASSING.

You have such a problem with Government running healthcare, but government running a prison which doesn't need any sort of evidence to imprison and torture men is completely ok with you?

I think I found a new definition of hypocrisy.

Return them to the terror networks they came from in their host countries?

How do you know they came from a terror network? What evidence do you have? What evidence do you have that YOU'RE not part of a terrorist network?

[Inwit]

Let them out? You think I want to let them out? Our maximum security penitentiaries are tasked with housing CONVICTED mass murderers, rapists, domestic terrorists, hell, even CANNIBALS. You're telling me that they're incapable of housing more terrorists?

according to the article, some of them have been LET OUT. Unless you have a different definition of being "freed".

Now, nearly a year since Obama signed that order, Gitmo remains open, although several detainees have been moved overseas, freed or sent to U.S. prisons. The remaining will be sent to the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois, much to the chagrin of most Republicans and some Democrats, although a date for the final transfer has not yet been set and it is unclear how long it will really take to close the center.

[Al Waysrite]

In evaluating Obama's first year ask these questions (adapted from the Reagan-Carter debate):

Are you better off now than you were before Obama got elected?


Do you expect to be better off after 4 years of Obama?



If people answer honestly, approximately75% will say "No" to both questions.

[Folsom Guy]

In evaluating Obama's first year ask these questions (adapted from the Reagan-Carter debate):

Are you better off now than you were before Obama got elected?


Do you expect to be better off after 4 years of Obama?



If people answer honestly, approximately75% will say "No" to both questions.

A little bit perspective - if you look at the raw numbers...then the answer to both the questions above would have been a BIG NO after 2 years of Reagan presidency....Obama has gotten just 1 year under his belt...why is everyone expecting twice of him?

[Robert Giacometti]

A little bit perspective - if you look at the raw numbers...then the answer to both the questions above would have been a BIG NO after 2 years of Reagan presidency....Obama has gotten just 1 year under his belt...why is everyone expecting twice of him?

Businesses and People had confidence in Reagans' vision and plans, so the answers would have been a BIG YES for a lot of people for Reagan.

I believe if those who are moderate, middle of the road or independants, knew this is where we ( as a country) would be in 14 months after voting for Obama, that enough of those who voted for Obama would have voted for McCain instead maybe making him President.

If we had Obama tell us his vision of where he thought we as a country would be in a year after him taking office, I can't believe this is where he would want us to be or where he thought we would be.

There is time for Obama to turn things around and if that happens he would deserve the credit. I just don't see him supporting the fundamentals needed ( cutting taxes and reducing Government) for this to happen.

[EDF]

A little bit perspective - if you look at the raw numbers...then the answer to both the questions above would have been a BIG NO after 2 years of Reagan presidency....Obama has gotten just 1 year under his belt...why is everyone expecting twice of him?

well for starters....

how about letting us see all the major bills he signed 72 hours before he signs them... Not done...

how about showing the negotiations on C-SPAN... he made that promise 8 times... Not done...

How about his pledge to not hire anymore "lobbyists"... Not done...

Tim "tax cheat" Geitner

Van Jones

and the most recent guy he nominated for TSA...

It's the Democrat Culture of Corruption and Arrogance that are the cause of the "Bamster's" down fall...

Now that you have the memo..... you are hereby certified to be "clued in"...

[FolsomVW]

according to the article, some of them have been LET OUT. Unless you have a different definition of being "freed".

These would include the Chinese Muslim Uighurs, who would have been persecuted had they been released to China, where many of their families live. Instead, they've been distributed to accepting nations around the world.

I also read that some detainees that were freed by the last administration, likely due to a lack of any evidence to hold them further, joined up with terrorist groups in Yemen. This is why the current administration put a hold on further releases there, to stem recruitment. This is the major reason that Guantanamo Bay is a real threat, is that it represents a symbol of recruitment for terrorists.

In evaluating Obama's first year ask these questions (adapted from the Reagan-Carter debate):

Are you better off now than you were before Obama got elected?

Do you expect to be better off after 4 years of Obama?

If people answer honestly, approximately75% will say "No" to both questions.

I expect most people's situation to be better in 3 more years. Considering the rate at which the state and the nation was losing jobs just one year ago (>600,000 per month), I'd say that we're heading in the right direction. I don't know how many people realize how deep this recession was compared to others in recent history. This combined with a major banking crisis. Shoot, it's as if people expected the work capable of a god.

[Robert Giacometti]

I expect most people's situation to be better in 3 more years. Considering the rate at which the state and the nation was losing jobs just one year ago (>600,000 per month), I'd say that we're heading in the right direction. I don't know how many people realize how deep this recession was compared to others in recent history. This combined with a major banking crisis. Shoot, it's as if people expected the work capable of a god.

I hope you are right regarding most people being in a better situation in 3 years. What I am afraid of is there may be lots more suffering before we get there.

Something that puzzles me is when people think because we are loosing less jobs now, than before , somehow this translates into that we are headed in the right direction. What this is telling us is that we are still headed in the wrong direction, but at a slower pace. When we start to add jobs, THEN we will be moving in the right direction.

Most people recognize the severity of this recession. I'd say there are 3 groups, one who sees it, feels it and talks about it, one who sees, it feels it, but doesn't talk about it NOW, ( because now its the President they voted for in the White House) and those politicians and higher ranking bureacrats who are insulated from it, so they don't see it or feel it.

Unfortunately, its the last group who will need to provide the leadership to get this country turned around. Maybe this recent election will send the message loud and clear, that we need jobs!

I was pleased to see some of the DEMS talking about changing the focus of legislation to creating jobs.

[The Average Joe]

"This is the major reason that Guantanamo Bay is a real threat, is that it represents a symbol of recruitment for terrorists. "

Not to hijack the thread, but I just had to say:

Please.
Terrorist needs no "symbol" for recruitment. They have been brainwashed to hate everything about the western world. They don't give a hoot about Gitmo. For arguments sake, let's say they actually do care. Closing Gitmo will make no difference, as they will just fixate on something else to hate. They are not reasonable people. Try to understand, they are fanatics who don't give a hoot about trying to relate to you.

You aren't going to change anyone's mind who is warped enough to commit mass murder of women and children by closing Gitmo...

[FolsomVW]

I hope you are right regarding most people being in a better situation in 3 years. What I am afraid of is there may be lots more suffering before we get there.

Something that puzzles me is when people think because we are loosing less jobs now, than before , somehow this translates into that we are headed in the right direction. What this is telling us is that we are still headed in the wrong direction, but at a slower pace. When we start to add jobs, THEN we will be moving in the right direction.

Most people recognize the severity of this recession. I'd say there are 3 groups, one who sees it, feels it and talks about it, one who sees, it feels it, but doesn't talk about it NOW, ( because now its the President they voted for in the White House) and those politicians and higher ranking bureacrats who are insulated from it, so they don't see it or feel it.

Unfortunately, its the last group who will need to provide the oleadership to get this country turned around. Maybe this recent election will send the message loud and clear, that we need jobs!

I was pleased to see some of the DEMS talking about changing the focus of legislation to creating jobs.

By right direction I mean not into a great depression, with true jobless rates as high as they were in the 1930's. With unemployment insurance running out here shortly, we can expect it to GE worse before it gets better for many. So I agree with your point. It'll even entertain your technical view by suggesting that I don't think jobs have yet to keep up with the net increase in the job force since the 2001 recession and post-9/11 dip. I think the country has been in the negative trying to catch up for the past 10 years.

Also, I think we'll see job growth as the construction season opens up this spring.

The major difference between this recovery period and the last two will be the banks' tight lending standards. The cheap money is nowhere near as available to small businesses as it was prior to the banking crisis. Those that used to rely especially on short term loans must now keep a buffer to handle these expenses. I hadn't realized that this was much of a typical thing until recently.

Funny thing about all the talk about job-creation legislation, is that it is nearly always associated with spending-an evil word these days.

[FolsomVW]

"This is the major reason that Guantanamo Bay is a real threat, is that it represents a symbol of recruitment for terrorists. "

Not to hijack the thread, but I just had to say:

Please.
Terrorist needs no "symbol" for recruitment. They have been brainwashed to hate everything about the western world. They don't give a hoot about Gitmo. For arguments sake, let's say they actually do care. Closing Gitmo will make no difference, as they will just fixate on something else to hate. They are not reasonable people. Try to understand, they are fanatics who don't give a hoot about trying to relate to you.

You aren't going to change anyone's mind who is warped enough to commit mass murder of women and children by closing Gitmo...

Those raised in madrassas might be brainwashed, having been forcefed religious teachings from an early age, but most people in the Middle East don't fit this profile. Our poor treatment of their people and intervention on their land, regardless of what nation is what drives recruitment of radical thought by otherwise politically uninvolved people. The liberals and libertarians have it correct on this point.

Fanatics born to fanatics are one thing, moderates of all kinds including the poor, educated and even wealthy families are being recruited by fanatics all the time. It's no wonder their numbers do not seem to deminish noticably over time.

No worries if you don't agree with me.

P.s. Is there a setting to better read the forum on a mobile device?

[The Average Joe]

"Our poor treatment of their people and intervention on their land, regardless of what nation is what drives recruitment of radical thought by otherwise politically uninvolved people."

<sigh> Who kills more Muslims than any other group? Muslims! Who pushes an antiquated view of women? Fundamentalist Muslims. It is not our "poor treatment" of them, it is the treatment of each other that constitutes poor treatment of their people. We are a scapegoat. You confuse politically motivated with religious furor. Islam is BOTH a political and religious belief system. There is no separation of church and state for them.

Now if you want to argue that having troops on Iraq or Afghanistan soil is a "recruitment tool," I would be willing to entertain that. But Gitmo? Please...