Obama '08?

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

We have a problem here. You're taking this out of context to imply the exact opposite of what he was saying.

I'm not trying to twist his words. He has plenty of people willing to do that on a daily basis, including some from his own party. He continued to push the bill, as it was. Then Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

You don't Hillary will ever get the endorsement, or don't think that if she got the endorsement that she'd win?

She isn't likeable enough by half to unite her own party (let alone the courntry) and even if she could; she'd still be up against a good deal of sexism and likely the biggest Republican turnout in history. No chance. (Unless, perhaps, she ran against Palin.)

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What exactly has happened that makes it 'dumb?'

Or are you just scared? It sounds a lot like the second.

Cycloptichorn

All kinds of things. The reasons have been posted so many times, I don't frankly wish to waste time doing it over and over for the dense among us. And the very fact that even many staunch liberal Democrats are no longer even supporting the decision to try terrorists in civilian courts, that should tell you alot, cyclops.

It isn't a matter of being scared, its a matter of being sensible about national security. Why break precendence with 200 some odd years of history? It makes no sense whatsoever, it is just dumb, cyclops.

Sounds like 'scared' to me. You can't name any specific reasons, it isn't a waste of your time to do and would take less time then it took to write this post.

Nah. It's just Nameless fear coupled with your wish to see Obama lose at every angle. There's no objective reason not to try the guy.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Seriously, cyclops, can you not think of any reasons yourself, or are you that much of a mental midget that you cannot muster a single one?

Sheesh, read what some of your own politicians on the Democratic side are saying, even alot of those have enough smarts to start figuring some things out.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmE1NWMzZDFmYjViMzU2YTI5NDdiMmZjMGFhYjE4YTE=

“There are other places to try it in the U.S. that are much more remote, much less a target, and much less a squatting ground for propaganda around the world,” Feinstein said.

Hey cyclops, I could finish Feinstein's thought process for her, and suggest Gitmo was a great place to take care of business.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Seriously, cyclops, can you not think of any reasons yourself, or are you that much of a mental midget that you cannot muster a single one?

Sheesh, read what some of your own politicians on the Democratic side are saying, even alot of those have enough smarts to start figuring some things out.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmE1NWMzZDFmYjViMzU2YTI5NDdiMmZjMGFhYjE4YTE=

“There are other places to try it in the U.S. that are much more remote, much less a target, and much less a squatting ground for propaganda around the world,” Feinstein said.

I would finish Feintstein's thougtht process for her, and suggest Gitmo was a great place to take care of business.

So, you are alleging that trying KSM will lead to a terrorist attack? Why would NY be any more of a target then it already was, exactly? This logic - whether it comes from a Republican or a Dem - is idiotic.

I also wonder just how you think this will be a 'propaganda' thing, as cameras are not allowed in Federal courts, and we've tried plenty of terrorists there before without problems.

I want YOU to specifically tell me what is so dangerous about this - I bet you cannot. Don't outsource it to someone else. Tell me why YOU are afraid.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

It isn't a matter of being scared, its a matter of being sensible about national security. Why break precendence with 200 some odd years of history? It makes no sense whatsoever, it is just dumb, cyclops.

What precedence are you talking about
Tim McVeigh? tried in civilian court
Ramzi Yousef - tried in civilian court
Richard Reid - tried in civilian court
Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman - tried in civilian court
Jose Padilla - remember him? Tried in civilian court after the court disagreed with you on 200 years of US history.
The list goes on and on....

The Weather Underground? Ever hear of them okie? (You seem to know about them one day and then forget the next.)
How about the SLA?

I am curious why you complained about Clinton pardoning Puerto Rican terrorists okie. Did you forget that 200 years of precedence in the US says we don't try them in civilian courts.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I am not much afraid, because I do not live in New York, but if I did, I would not want these losers darkening the door of my state, it is an absolute insult to give these people a venue in civil courts, a showplace for their propaganda.

Do you not have any honor or respect for this country at all, cyclops?

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I am not much afraid, because I do not live in New York, but if I did, I would not want these losers darkening the door of my state, it is an absolute insult to give these people a venue in civil courts, a showplace for their propaganda.

How is it a 'showplace' for propaganda? Who do you think will be propagandizing? I remind you once again that there are no videos in the courtroom! Who exactly do you think is going to be sitting around reading the transcripts, going 'oooh damn those Americans, let's attack New York now!'

You have not thought this through much at all, Okie. Seriously.

Quote:

Do you not have any honor or respect for this country at all, cyclops?

Of course I do. I honor and respect our judicial system, which is more then can be said for you, who constantly denigrates 1/3rd of our governmental structure and claims that they can't be trusted to do their job.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
It isn't a matter of being scared, its a matter of being sensible about national security. Why break precendence with 200 some odd years of history? It makes no sense whatsoever, it is just dumb, cyclops.

What precedence are you talking about

The following might be a good example:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=5244

Burger and the rest of the Long Island team were picked up by June 22, and by June 27 the whole of the Florida team was arrested. To preserve wartime secrecy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered a special military tribunal consisting of seven generals to try the saboteurs. At the end of July, Dasch was sentenced to 30 years in prison, Burger was sentenced to hard labor for life, and the other six Germans were sentenced to die. The six condemned saboteurs were executed by electric chair in Washington, D.C., on August 8. In 1944, two other German spies were caught after a landing in Maine. No other instances of German sabotage within wartime America has come to light.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Our judicial system was intended for our problems here, not enemy combatants, cyclops, you need to read up on some history.

Read my above post to find an excellent example of why military tribunals are both appropriate and necessary.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Yes, that statement is in error! But parados doesn't want to say what the correct value is!

Actually, I did point out the correct value in table 1.3 in the budget documents.

Amazing how much time and how many posts you wasted when I told WHAT the error was in my first post.

Table 1.3 shows that the increase in Federal revenues adjusted for inflation was a mere 26.26% increase.
Yet from 1992 - 2000, when we didn't have a tax cut revenues increase by 57.96%. More than DOUBLE what happened with the tax. So clearly tax cuts don't increase revenues as much as no tax cut will.

57.96%/26.26%= 2.2066

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Our judicial system was intended for our problems here, not enemy combatants, cyclops, you need to read up on some history.

Read my above post to find an excellent example of why military tribunals are both appropriate and necessary.

Your above answer doesn't show why they are necessary at all.

And you didn't answer any of my questions, but instead evaded them. I am forced to conclude that you do in fact know that you are full of **** on this issue; there is nothing to fear from trying him in a Federal court in NY at all.

It's just that, like usual, you want whatever is worst for Obama - every time.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

If Obama continues to be president to the end of his term, and Sarah Palin is the Republican candidate for president in 2012, Sarah will win in a landslide, and the Republicans will win large majorities in both the House and Senate.

Reducing maximum federal tax rates on the wealthy and stopping increases in federal outlays, will lead to an increase in spending and investment by the wealthy, which will increase both jobs and federal receipts, and a slow but steady recovery.

Population increases do not contribute to increasing federal receipts. Population increases do increase federal outlays.

Inflation does not contribute to increasing federal receipts. Inflation reduces how much is purchased, how much is invested, how much jobs are increased, and how much taxable income is increased.

1 Reply

@okie,

So.. let's see - "saboteurs" in a war declared by Congress is your precedence?

OK.. when did Congress officially declare war?
When did we arrest "saboteurs?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I want Obama to fail, because his policies are bad for America, plain and simple.

I won't argue anymore about the trial in NY, but you will see as this plays out why it is so stupid, and inappropriate. I am guessing it may never happen because more sensible people will demand it, but if it somehow happens, the whole thing will end up being an absolute farce and fiasco, and will adequately explain why it was dumb. Besides, the adminisration has already compromised the guy having a fair trial, under normal rules, because they have already said he is guilty and will fry. Obama is a dummie, big time.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Population increases do not contribute to increasing federal receipts. Population increases do increase federal outlays.

Inflation does not contribute to increasing federal receipts. Inflation reduces how much is purchased, how much is invested, how much jobs are increased, and how much taxable income is increased.

Which only goes to FURTHER undermine your argument since you can't show how and why Clinton's failure to lower taxes increased revenues quicker than Reagan's tax cut.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I want Obama to fail, because his policies are bad for America, plain and simple.

You want Obama to fail, even if that means America itself failing or doing badly. You would LIKE to see things go badly, because that would become proof that Obama's policies are bad.

Quote:

I won't argue anymore about the trial in NY, but you will see as this plays out why it is so stupid, and inappropriate. I am guessing it may never happen because more sensible people will demand it, but if it somehow happens, the whole thing will end up being an absolute farce and fiasco, and will adequately explain why it was dumb. Besides, the adminisration has already compromised the guy having a fair trial, under normal rules, because they have already said he is guilty and will fry. Obama is a dummie, big time.

How will it be a 'farce and fiasco?' What is it you think will happen - specifically?

You can't say because you have no idea. The truth is it will likely go forward and end in a conviction followed by an execution. And nothing bad will happen at all. Are you going to come back and admit that you were wrong, then? NO! Because none of this is about the facts or what's right, not to you; not at all. It's about hating Obama. Just like pretty much every other issue you comment on here.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

It isn't a matter of being scared, its a matter of being sensible about national security. Why break precendence with 200 some odd years of history?

Yeah. Don't do anything that hasn't been done before.

Here you go:

Quote:

Although there has been much criticism of the decision to hold the trial in New York City, when it comes to prosecuting terror suspects, the Southern District of New York knows what it’s doing. The staff of the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York has gained considerable knowledge and expertise prosecuting terror cases over the years, just as the U.S. Marshals Service Special Operations Group (SOG) has gained much experience providing security for those trials. It was in the Southern District of New York in 1995 that Omar Abdel Rahman, aka the Blind Sheikh, was tried for the so-called Landmarks Plot of 1993 and received a life sentence. In 1996, Abdel Basit (aka Ramzi Yousef) and two co-conspirators were also tried in the Southern District and sentenced to life in prison for their roles in the Bojinka Plot, which also included an indictment for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the staff of the Southern District has been familiar with Mohammed for some time now). The attackers behind the 1998 attacks against the U.S. embassies were also prosecuted in the Southern District of New York and sentenced to life imprisonment. Few other courts have so much experience handling and prosecuting high-profile terrorism cases, so it should have come as no surprise that Holder named the district as the venue for the upcoming trial.

Not only is there historical precedence for trying foreign terrorists domestically - there's precedence to have them tried exactly where Holder proposed these trials should take place.

0 Replies

i want to see obama fail

and then i want to see palin fail

and then i want to see america do the curly from the three stooges run in a circle on the floor going "woo woo woo" as they try and figure out what to do next

0 Replies

Trying enemy combatants in civil courts enables them to demand the disclosure to them of what our government uses to defend us and how they use it to defend us.

Enemy combatants tried in civil courts are innocent until proven guilty. They can obtain dismissal of charges, if our military decides to withholds any information, the combatants can convince the judge they need to defend themselves.

Further, there is great danger from non-captured terrorist combatants to the welfare of neighborhoods in which such civil trials are held. So the cost of protecting such neighborhoods will be increased tremendously.

Gitmo is where captured terrorist should be tried and when found guilty should be incarcerated.

Those terrorists resident in the USA and captured domestically are the exception. They must be tried in civil trials.

3 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know