AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Woiyo--Only a shameless braggart would post the following:

Re: Woiyo9 (Post 3655735)
Woiyo-9, You are more ignorant than most on a2k. I have done (accomplished) more than many people assume. HINT: I have traveled to over 135 countries on vacation.

We own our home mortgage free (in one of the most expensive ZIP codes in Silicon Valley), we have two relatively new cars (mine: Acura; wife's Honda), we have money in the bank and retirement investments five times more than the average American, and our FICO score is 818.

I have worked in management for most of my professional career (30-years), and retired early.

**********************************

How can we check the truth of the information above/

We can't

**********************************************************
*

Now, Woiyo, isn't that sad? Who knows if Cicerone Imposter is telling the truth. But don't you pity anyone like Cicerone Imposter who has so little personal sense of self-worth that he must regale you petty little details?

He is saying: Hey, I'm important..Poor man.... Such a childish attempt at showing off reveals a person who is greatly in need of medical mental therapy.

That is perhaps the major reason why his posts are highly suspect. He is mentally immature and shows a massive inferiority complex.

Cyclops wrote:

What do you mean, such as? See: those things which have already been passed by Obama and their approach to health care reform and closing gitmo (hopefully) and etc...

?????

l. Obama passes nothing! The Legislature PASSES bills. BO signs them, if they get to him.

2. The legislatures( even though controlled by Democrats) have revised much of what BO promised in his campaign. BO did not get all the stimulus money he asked for.

3. NO health care reform has been passed and it is likely that if any is passed, it will beVERY DIFFERENT from that asked for by the community organizer from the Chicago Ghetto who found it very easy to get his homies to do what he asked.

4. Note that Legislators on both sides of the aisle, examined BO's executive order on Gitmo on the second day of his presidency, and then stuck it in OBAMA'S ear . Read below:





'We're not going to bring al Qaeda to Big Sky Country. No way, not on my watch," declared Montana Sen. Max Baucus. "I wouldn't want them and I wouldn't take them," insisted Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Not Quantico, piped up Virginia's Mark Warner. After all, it "is in a very populated area in the greater capital region." Look, "Alcatraz is a national park and a tourist attraction, not a functioning prison" for terrorists, said the office of California's Dianne Feinstein.


All Democrats in favor of standing with your president to shout out the evils of Guantanamo, shout aye! "Aye!" All Democrats in favor of doing what would be necessary to close Guantanamo, shout aye! . . . What, nobody?

On day two of his presidency, Barack Obama issued an executive order to shut down, within one year, the Gitmo prison that still houses 241 detainees. Four months later, he may be about to be handed his first defeat of a major campaign promise, and by his own party. Faced with the actual politics of bringing terrorists to U.S. soil, congressional Democrats are running for the exits.

President Bush never closed Gitmo because, put simply, the options were to transfer detainees to foreign countries or to transfer detainees here. Attorney General Eric Holder in April embarked on a "please take back your bad guys" road show through the very European countries that had sermonized about America's offshore prison. The Brits and Germans sent the president their regards and promised to think about it.

That leaves the U.S. as the destination for Gitmo inmates, and Republicans have slowly but consistently turned Gitmo into a debate over Democrats' ability to handle national security. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been hitting on Guantanamo since February, warning that the administration's decision to put "symbolism" over "safety" might result in Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Ramzi bin al Shibh coming soon to a neighborhood near you. House Republicans last week released a chilling video showing footage of 9/ 11, mug shots of the aforementioned murderers, and the question "How does closing Guantanamo Bay make us safer?"

ccccc
Democrats don't dare. The House instead last week yanked from an appropriations bill the $81 million Mr. Obama wants as a down payment to begin the process of shuttering the prison. Worried that even this didn't provide enough cover, they also inserted language barring detainee transfers to the U.S. until at least October.

Appropriations chief David Obey explained that the only reason Congress didn't provide the money is that it first wants to see the administration's "plan." In truth, Democrats don't want to touch this debate -- certainly not now, in the middle of the what-Nancy-knew-and-when discussion. So they're kicking the can back to Mr. Obama.

The Senate is also set to deal with an appropriations bill, and Democrats are growing very wary that Republicans will introduce some awkward amendments that will force them to actually vote to bring terrorists to the U.S. Not surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now saying he, too, would first like to see some "specifics" from the administration.

This was not part of the Obama team's calculation. It figured it would get its bucks and make its calls. Releasing specific plans for where it intends to land these detainees will cause geographic uproars. But six weeks ago, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions sent the first of two letters to Mr. Holder demanding to know the administration's legal authority for transfers, given that the federal Real ID Act prohibits admission to the U.S. of any alien who has engaged in a terrorist activity. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee has yet to receive a response.

The administration might have the ability to shuffle some funds and do this unilaterally. But it is already four months into its one-year deadline, and transfers take time. The other option is for the administration to start triangulating, blaming Congress for not funding the program, and pushing back the deadline.

If so, Guantanamo will join the growing list of security tools that President Obama once criticized as out of keeping with American values but has since discovered are very in keeping with protecting the nation. Wiretapping, renditions, military tribunals, Gitmo -- it turns out the Bush people weren't a bunch of yahoos but often thoughtful defenders against terrorism. This is all progress, though America might wonder if it could have been spared the intervening drama.

Cyclops wrote in response to Foxfyre.


Neither of what you posted are 'credible sources.' They are opinions of right-wingers. So, no. I won't.

***********************************************************************Here Cyclops shows that he is unable to rebut the data laid down by Foxfyre, so he attacks the messinger.

What Cyclops will not tell us is that if all used his criteria---Blah blah blah--NEITHER OF WHAT YOU POSTED ARE CREDIBLE SOURCES--blah blah blah, we would never read or comment on The New York Times, The Washington Post or the "Nation".

Cyclops thinks that only LEFT WING sources are acceptable. What an ignorant stance!!!

Wait a minute, JTT. You wrote:
quote
It's hardly possible to comment on a piece of excrement in a classy fashion. Wait a second, I just did.
end of quote
You were speaking about President Bush?

I think you are wrong. Excrement is usually brown. Bush is not brown!

Debra L A W may think she knows something about L A W, but she flunks English Literature.

She wrote:
quote
Yes. According to the "conservative" GOP Orwellian doublespeak manual.
end of quote
She apparently knows NOTHING about Orwellian doublespeak" and its sources and connections.


Here is what George Orwell wrote in his book "1984" under the heading THE PRINCIPLES OF NEWSPEAK.

Quote

"Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or ENGLISH SOCIALISM"

end of quote.

Even a well read High School Sophomore would know that the Orwellian Doublespeak cannot be assigned to the GOP Conservatives because Orwell designated the "doublespeak" for ENGLISH SOCIALISM.

no. my portfolio took a dive as soon as he took office. 7 years later, it was about where it had been then.

and now? hmmm. if i only had a bird and a cage, i could at least make use of the paper.

thank you republicans. really. t. you...

So you too have had success in republican and democratic administrations.

Good for you.

Thank you for proving once again, you are an asshole!!!

Congress voted 90-6 against funding the closure of Gitmo. GOOD!!!!

Or would you rather they house them in your neighborhood.

Why not? What would be the problem with that?

OMG... to think a dangerous person could possibly be kept anywhere on the US mainland. How could any reasonable person think that?

What if they moved into the Jones' house next door to me? Shopped at the same Quickie Mart? We can't possible have terrorists doing that. OMG Woiyo.. You have revealed this terrible threat to us. We couldn't possibly house terrorists in the US jails because they allow people to come and go all the time. There are 3 mass murderers in my neighborhood right now. We wouldn't possibly want any terrorists to live in the same place those mass murderers do.

I presume all those who think everybody else should not be the least concerned about terrorists should rent out rooms in your house. They can babysit your kids when you're out on the town and take care of the pets when you're on vacation. Certainly you have all written your elected representatives offering space in your own neighborhood. I think that's great of you. I know you also have unselfishly pledged whatever you can possibly do without of your income to help pay their legal fees and other costs involved and are prepared to offer them a job after they are released on a technicality or whatever transpires next.

I'm sure that's why the Senate just voted 90 to 6 to keep them at Guatanamo indefinitely rather than bring them to the USA--they're waiting on word from you that you're willing to take them in.

As far as I know, closing Guantanamo would simply mean that the inmates would be transferred to prisons within the United States.

Quite frankly, I don't see the problem with that. I also don't know how you get all that other unrelated stuff out of that.

I wouldn't mind housing them in my neighborhood. We have strong prisons here in CA.

What is it, exactly, that worries you bunch of pussies about bringing them to America to keep them in prison?

Cycloptichorn

I know you don't OE, but at least our Senate still has enough brain cells working to understand why that is a really bad idea. And those who think others should be magnanimous and generous and accommodating so seldom think it is their own responsibility to do what they think others should be doing. More often than not they are speaking from a secure position knowing that it will affect them personally little or not at all. That's true of welfare. That's true of taxes. And that's true re what should be done with the truly dangerous people housed at GITMO.

Listening to the President Obama now who quite astutely managed to blame his own problems with GITMO on President Bush. The problem is not that he issued an executive order closing GITMO--he sort of left out the part that he didn't have a clue how to do that or what would be done with the prisoners when he issued the order--but the problem was that GITMO was ever opened in the first place.

Bullshit. Why, exactly, is it a 'really bad idea?'

Cycloptichorn

Your little rant still doesn't explain what possible concerns there would be with moving the Guantanamo inmates to prisons within the States.

Why is it "a really bad idea"? Can you explain it, or is all of this just irrational fearmongering?

Ask the Senate. They were pretty clear why. I'm sure you listened to or read their arguments. The vote was 90 to 6 Cyclop. 90 to 6.

You can't explain it, then?

Yes, I'm aware of that vote. It's not surprising; when there are politicians out there who will engage in exactly the sort of fear mongering that you are currently doing, a vote for this is becomes a vote to bring terrorists - to YOUR neighborhood! It will be the basis for scary attack ads and stupid comments like many of yours hear - heavy on fear, light on specifics.

So it's scary for the Dems to vote on this without a concrete plan. They need cover from Obama. Not hard to figure out.

Now, back to my question: don't appeal to authority. I'm asking YOU Fox to explain why it's a 'really bad idea' to bring the inmates to American prisons. Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

Sure I can explain it. I'm pretty sure you can't. But why don't you start. You make the case for why those prisoners should be transferred to the USA instead of being held at GITMO. Perhaps Cyclop can help you out there.