Export thread

Jeb Bush tells President Obama: Stop blaming George W. Bush - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Ummm... well most of the policy in place that Obama didn't put into place WAS from former president. Some of it was George Bush problem.

The Afgan war and Iraq war as started during Bush Administration (I think that right) some of the economic policies and such.

Of course I have to agree with Jeb on some point in terms of stop blaming, just fix the problem.

Didn't Sean Connery said that in "Rising Sun" "That is the problem with Americans, it is always about the blame and not fixing the problem"

I think the problem stems from Obama being perfectly willing to leave Bush's mistakes in place while he adds blunders of his own. How's that patriot act repeal going? Gitmo still open too?

I'm starting to wonder if it mattered that we elected Obama instead of McCain.

escushion said:

I'm starting to wonder if it mattered that we elected Obama instead of McCain.

Click to expand...

It's usually for one of two reasons: In the vain hope that this guy will be different than the last dozen or so members of his party, or to drink the sweet, sweet tears of the other guy. Just ask Gas! He's lived for hundreds of years, his heart long since turned into a perfect, glittering gem of pure hatred, and managed to do it by supping on the sorrow and shattered dreams of liberals from each age.

GasBandit said:

I think the problem stems from Obama being perfectly willing to leave Bush's mistakes in place while he adds blunders of his own. How's that patriot act repeal going? Gitmo still open too?

Click to expand...

Considering Obama's only been in office for a year and half: PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

Nah, he's supposed to solve all eight years of George Bush fuck ups in a quarter of a term.

If that thing is true, he's on the right track.

Chazwozel;404625][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

I think the problem stems from Obama being perfectly willing to leave Bush's mistakes in place while he adds blunders of his own. How's that patriot act repeal going? Gitmo still open too?

Click to expand...

Considering Obama's only been in office for a year and half: PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

Nah, he's supposed to solve all eight years of George Bush fuck ups in a quarter of a term.[/QUOTE]

Why would you post such things like facts? Clearly because we can focus on a few things that he hasn't addressed yet, for whatever reason.

Facts are an illusion. If you disagree with it or if it hurts your point it's not actually a fact but a bold face lie.

Jay said:

If that thing is true, he's on the right track.

Click to expand...

But, according to republicans, he's supposed to have single-handedly cured cancer, solved world hunger, and invented an intersettler propulsion system within three months of being president. In a year and half, he should have figured out a way to convert the entire human race into super-sentient energy beings. WTF Obama.

Chazwozel;404658][QUOTE=Jay said:

If that thing is true, he's on the right track.

Click to expand...

But, according to republicans, he's supposed to have single-handedly cured cancer, solved world hunger, and invented an intersettler propulsion system within three months of being president. In a year and half, he should have figured out a way to convert the entire human race into super-sentient energy beings. WTF Obama.[/QUOTE]

sadly, I think the "public" has a short term memory. I been reading that now they are blaming the whole Iraq/Afgan war on Obama's fault and not Bush.
The oil spill is Obama's fault
Saving Banks and wasting tax payers is ALL Obama's fault. (well partly he did approve the 2nd half right?)

Chazwozel;404625][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

I think the problem stems from Obama being perfectly willing to leave Bush's mistakes in place while he adds blunders of his own. How's that patriot act repeal going? Gitmo still open too?

Click to expand...

Considering Obama's only been in office for a year and half: PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

Nah, he's supposed to solve all eight years of George Bush fuck ups in a quarter of a term.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I posted this same link back when Dave had mentioned he didn't feel that Obama had done much as President.

I was kinda surprised he'd already kept so many promises...we never hear about these things on the news. We only hear about the things he hasn't done. I wish there was a similar website for when Bush was in office, so we could compare and contrast, but I wasn't able to find one.

Well, Bush did promise on the campaign trail that he would not get involved in "Nation Building"

That did not turn out so well for Iraq and Afghanistan

I found this list
Promises To Keep - Bush

But I'm not sure how unbiased it is. It seems like it wants to focus more on evidence of Bush 'flip flopping'

and the Democrats, of course, focus on his broken promises

Has President Bush Kept His Promise to Keep His Promises?

But surely he kept SOME campaign promises, didn't he?

----------------

I found 's a more neutral article after some searching...
From His 'Great Goals' of 2000, President's Achievements Mixed (washingtonpost.com)

It's not as cut and dried as the Obama website, but I think it does begin to give us a more valid jumping point for comparison.

Chibibar said:

sadly, I think the "public" has a short term memory. I been reading that now they are blaming the whole Iraq/Afgan war on Obama's fault and not Bush.
The oil spill is Obama's fault
Saving Banks and wasting tax payers is ALL Obama's fault. (well partly he did approve the 2nd half right?)

Click to expand...

That's the burden of the Commander in Chief. He's the dude in charge now. He needs to take on the yoke of responsibility. It doesn't matter who spilled the milk. Whoever is in charge, needs to be about cleaning it up, instead of pointing fingers. I think Obama would be better off not mentioning Bush anymore. Everyone knows why we're in this mess. Obama should shoulder the responsibility and give it his best shot. If he doesn't fix it, at least he tried. It's going to take a decade (at least) to fix some of this stuff.

I admit, I haven't heard much whining from Obama about Bush, but of course I've been to busy to listen to much political stuff lately. I agree with Awkward, it's better to take the responsibility of the job rather than point finger, no one respects that.

Not a single instance of a sited time that Obama talked about his big brother. Just stop doing what ever I accuse you of, JUST STOP. You don't even need to be doing it.

Sounds like a really immature babble... "STOP PICKING ON MY BIG BROTHER! OR I'LL TELL DAD!"

I agree with that, Jeb Bush, hell, ANY Bush should keep their mouths shut and stay low. Forever.

Jeb's just pissed because his political career is over. Guilty by association.

Chazwozel;404625][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

I think the problem stems from Obama being perfectly willing to leave Bush's mistakes in place while he adds blunders of his own. How's that patriot act repeal going? Gitmo still open too?

Click to expand...

Considering Obama's only been in office for a year and half: PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises

Nah, he's supposed to solve all eight years of George Bush fuck ups in a quarter of a term.[/QUOTE]

Not all of them, just the ones he trumpeted the most loudly, and those his supporters said he would do first. You know, the BIGGIES. Not the ones nobody had ever heard of until they read about them on politifact. Plus, as I pointed out before, that politifact list is misleading at best and bullshit from a more realistic standpoint. It has "Universal Health Care" as a promise kept, when anybody on either side of the aisle will tell you that obamacare is NOT "universal health care." It'd be more accurate to describe it as "government mandated and middle-managed private health insurance that you still have to pay for yourself." Oh, and he kept his promise to fully fund the CDBG! Yay! Quick, without googling, what's the CDBG? ..... exactly. And he's kept his promise to "promote cultural diplomacy!" Wtf is "cultural diplomacy" and exactly how did he keep his promise, and do you even REMEMBER him making this promise in the past, and would you have cared at all if and when you heard him make that promise? And on top of that, they soften the amounts of "no he hasn't" issues by calling them "in the works."

Plus, throw into the mix he has had the OPPORTUNITY to undo Bush mistakes, and ACTIVELY DID NOT. The patriot act, even and especially the more onerous parts, have not only not been repealed, they've been actively renewed. General Petreus, who Obamabots were only last year calling "General Betray-us" and accusing him of lying about the situation in Iraq before he could now even open his mouth... has now been put in charge of Afghanistan. And of course, one of his biggest and most often quoted promises, to restore transparency and accountability to washington went RIGHT out the door the first instant he became president, with thousand-plus page bills being put to vote when their text was only made available at 11pm the previous night.

Chazwozel - Obama's official dick-rider.

I noticed that you get really defensive when a big cock of truth slaps you across the face.

Is Obama Superman? Of course not! That doesn't change the fact that he's still done more good his first quarter term than Bush did in his whole eight years. I'd rather have an intellectual president like Clinton or Obama versus a rootin' tootin' cowboy like the Bushes or a Alzheimer's ridden actor like Regan any day.

And you do realize that Obama care is the way it is because of republican opposition right?

Oh that's right, Democrats needed the Republican vote to get it passed, that's why they worked closely with Republicans to ensure that Republican concerns were met. I forgot about that.

Covar said:

Oh that's right, Democrats needed the Republican vote to get it passed, that's why they worked closely with Republicans to ensure that Republican concerns were met. I forgot about that.

Click to expand...

Life would be easier if everything was just under the control of one party. I mean, as long as it's the party you like that is... if not then RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE!

Espy;405361][QUOTE=Covar said:

Oh that's right, Democrats needed the Republican vote to get it passed, that's why they worked closely with Republicans to ensure that Republican concerns were met. I forgot about that.

Click to expand...

Life would be easier if everything was just under the control of one party. I mean, as long as it's the party you like that is... if not then RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE![/QUOTE]
He forgot to add that they bend over backwards to include stuff they like, and still get no supporting votes

Espy;405361][QUOTE=Covar said:

Oh that's right, Democrats needed the Republican vote to get it passed, that's why they worked closely with Republicans to ensure that Republican concerns were met. I forgot about that.

Click to expand...

Life would be easier if everything was just under the control of one party. I mean, as long as it's the party you like that is... if not then RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE![/QUOTE]

Eh, I just think Libertarian and Republican ideals are too far based in the 1700's to actually function in today's society. Hardcore Democrats are douchebags too, but at least you can apply a lot of their principles to a changing society.

---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 PM ----------

Krisken;405363][QUOTE=Espy;405361][QUOTE=Covar said:

Oh that's right, Democrats needed the Republican vote to get it passed, that's why they worked closely with Republicans to ensure that Republican concerns were met. I forgot about that.

Click to expand...

Life would be easier if everything was just under the control of one party. I mean, as long as it's the party you like that is... if not then RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE![/QUOTE]
He forgot to add that they bend over backwards to include stuff they like, and still get no supporting votes [/QUOTE]

And that's the mindset that turns me off from that party. The image of an old Archy Bunker sitting in his armchair ranting about the good ol' days; not realizing he's getting buttfucked by his rich neighbor's with the same mindset. Meanwhile his progressive daughter and son-in-law are actually out doing things to accommodate a changing world.

Krisken;405363][QUOTE=Espy;405361][QUOTE=Covar said:

Oh that's right, Democrats needed the Republican vote to get it passed, that's why they worked closely with Republicans to ensure that Republican concerns were met. I forgot about that.

Click to expand...

Life would be easier if everything was just under the control of one party. I mean, as long as it's the party you like that is... if not then RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE![/QUOTE]
He forgot to add that they bend over backwards to include stuff they like, and still get no supporting votes [/QUOTE]

So how does that work? You want the republicans to support the dems now, but when the tables flip will you want the dems to support the repubs so they can pass whatever legislation you don't like?

Do you get what I'm saying? If dems got what they wanted, total support from the republicans there is NO WAY in hell they would be ok with the republicans getting that support back when it's their turn.

The system is designed to cause gridlock and make the process slow and difficult. I'm not entirely sure thats always a bad thing. Sometimes, sure, but not always. It prevents a couple hundred people from becoming a ruling class it seems.

Espy;405370][QUOTE=Krisken;405363][QUOTE=Espy;405361][QUOTE=Covar said:

Oh that's right, Democrats needed the Republican vote to get it passed, that's why they worked closely with Republicans to ensure that Republican concerns were met. I forgot about that.

Click to expand...

Life would be easier if everything was just under the control of one party. I mean, as long as it's the party you like that is... if not then RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE![/QUOTE]
He forgot to add that they bend over backwards to include stuff they like, and still get no supporting votes [/QUOTE]

So how does that work? You want the republicans to support the dems now, but when the tables flip will you want the dems to support the repubs so they can pass whatever legislation you don't like?

Do you get what I'm saying? If dems got what they wanted, total support from the republicans there is NO WAY in hell they would be ok with the republicans getting that support back when it's their turn.

The system is designed to cause gridlock and make the process slow and difficult. I'm not entirely sure thats always a bad thing. Sometimes, sure, but not always. It prevents a couple hundred people from becoming a ruling class it seems.[/QUOTE]

In terms of something that needs rapid change - like heathcare - there needs to more push than pull.

Espy;405370][QUOTE=Krisken;405363][QUOTE=Espy;405361][QUOTE=Covar said:

Oh that's right, Democrats needed the Republican vote to get it passed, that's why they worked closely with Republicans to ensure that Republican concerns were met. I forgot about that.

Click to expand...

Life would be easier if everything was just under the control of one party. I mean, as long as it's the party you like that is... if not then RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE![/QUOTE]
He forgot to add that they bend over backwards to include stuff they like, and still get no supporting votes [/QUOTE]

So how does that work? You want the republicans to support the dems now, but when the tables flip will you want the dems to support the repubs so they can pass whatever legislation you don't like?

Do you get what I'm saying? If dems got what they wanted, total support from the republicans there is NO WAY in hell they would be ok with the republicans getting that support back when it's their turn.

The system is designed to cause gridlock and make the process slow and difficult. I'm not entirely sure thats always a bad thing. Sometimes, sure, but not always. It prevents a couple hundred people from becoming a ruling class it seems.[/QUOTE]
I hate to break it to ya, that's called compromise. It happened a lot during the Bush years, happened during the Clinton years, happened during pappy Bush's years, so on and so on. At this point, there are two groups who are being stupid here- the Republicans who say no despite the bills being so watered down it's basically what they wanted 10 years ago, and the Democrats for thinking that giving this Republican Congress what they want would give them any votes. You would think that a full year of this would have opened their eyes, but no one learns slower than a Democrat in power.

Chazwozel said:

And you do realize that Obama care is the way it is because of republican opposition right?

Click to expand...

No, Obamacare is the way it is now because not every democrat was drinking so much of the kool-aid.

For so much of the last year and a half, the republicans have been completely politically impotent. It's been dissension in the Democrat ranks that has stymied the Obama agenda. I guess you could say that opposition was bipartisan, if you're into bipartisanship.

Krisken said:

I hate to break it to ya, that's called compromise.

Click to expand...

Really? I've never heard of that!

Just kidding. I have. Maybe I didn't communicate what I was trying to say though, I hear people complaining that the republicans won't get on board the democrats mission with things like the health care bill, arguably one of the most controversial things for both parties and their constitutions. You want compromise on one of the biggest parts of the dem platform?

Sure. Which major part of the republican platform do you want your dems to get on board for?

I'm talking tit for tat here, not "We watered down the bill for you" bullshit that no one wants. What would you be ok with that is comparable to something so huge like healthcare?

If you are looking for a list of stuff the Republicans asked for and got in exchange for the zero votes on Healthcare, it will have to wait. I worked tonight and have to help my wife with the strawberry festival all weekend. Rest assured, though, I'll be collecting references and links dating all the way back to the 90's for things that were granted in this healthcare bill which were asked for by Republicans back when they were screaming "Hillarycare!" instead of "Obamacare!"

Edit:
I'd like to add that if you aren't really interested, let me know. I don't want to spend a lot of time looking for something if you aren't interested in the result. I'm not Gasbandit. Arguing isn't what i look for in these conversations, and I have no desire to spend an hour or two compiling a post to highlight these things if you aren't really interested. Lots of shit I'd rather be doing, like miniatures, job hunting, helping my wife get her store running online, etc.

No, no, I'm not having a "this is really happening" conversation, more of a theoretical discussion on how to pass better legislation. The whole reason we got such a crappy bill was because of the watering down of it to the point of "meh" according to many. How could that NOT happen is what I'm really asking, given our current system? Is there a way to actually pass GOOD legislation without watering it down or compromising away the things that make it solid?
I guess it just seems that I hear a lot of short-sightedness from people (thats a general people, like, all around me) about how they think the world should work when there party is in control. The assumption seems to be they should be able to do whatever they want just because they are either in power or because that side views their team as the more righteous players in the game. I guess I don't see how it could really be any different, since, like I theorized in my above posts, I doubt those who want total power for their party to pass whatever they want would want the other party to be able to have the same when they win the election.
Thus we end up with compromised bills and gridlock and people whining and complaining about the same things the other side whined and complained about before they got in power. Whats the solution? Clearly we can't make everyone happy but it seems that no matter what almost no one is happy.

I certainly don't think every bill should pass. I expect the finer points to be finely debated. I just don't think that happens. Most of the Senators have no idea what they are voting for, what is in the bill, or even why they support or oppose it. How many times did you hear it was a socialist bill? Can you remember the bumper sticker slogans tacked on by both sides to describe the bill? Government take-over of healthcare? Just on health care alone it was impossible to understand what was in the bill even after listening to the Senators talking about it. Mandatory enrollment is a classic example. 1994 every Republican was in favor of it. Now not a single one wanted it, screamed it was unconstitutional. That isn't sane.

There are a lot of great ideas. I just don't think the opposition is meant to improve the process at this point. You want Republican ideas, and I have to tell ya, as soon as I hear some I'll be happy to let you know what they are.

There's something that I'm actually curious about.

For those of you who voted for Obama: Think back. When you were at the ballot voting for the guy, what specifically were you hoping for him to accomplish at the time? Try to be honest -- what was on your mind at the time as the reason you wanted this man to be president instead of McCain?

After remembering that, would you say he's fulfilled your expectations?

Soliloquy said:

There's something that I'm actually curious about.

For those of you who voted for Obama: Think back. When you were at the ballot voting for the guy, what specifically were you hoping for him to accomplish at the time? Try to be honest -- what was on your mind at the time as the reason you wanted this man to be president instead of McCain?

After remembering that, would you say he's fulfilled your expectations?

Click to expand...

Getting there with the push and kick in the ass with healthcare reform. Also his VP isn't a complete dumbass.

Chazwozel said:

Also his VP isn't a complete dumbass.

Click to expand...

His embarrasing public mistakes are so numerous they have to make "Top 10 Biden Gaffe" lists. He's been the best Vice Presidential Joke Factory since Dan Quayle.

I voted for Obama primarily for healthcare, and having a President that acknowledged that international diplomacy consists of more than bluster and requires engagement with countries whose interests aren't necessarily the same as ours.

He's made good starts, IMO, though not as many as I would like. It's also worth noting that I'm very unsatisfied with his performance in regards to emptying Gitmo, pressuring Congress to get rid of the Patriot Act, and basically steering us off the "Look behind that tree - it's a TERRORISTOMGWTFBBQ!!!11" thing that we've been doing for years.

---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------

GasBandit;406492][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:

Also his VP isn't a complete dumbass.

Click to expand...

His embarrasing public mistakes are so numerous they have to make "Top 10 Biden Gaffe" lists. He's been the best Vice Presidential Joke Factory since Dan Quayle.[/QUOTE]

I kind of have to agree with GB, here. I respect Biden's history as a legislator a great deal, but his time as VP has been gaffe-ilicious.

I've never heard anyone refer to Cheney as a "dumbass". Maybe evil overlord, mastermind, etc, but dumbass? Compared to Biden? I need some of whatever you are smoking Chaz.

Espy said:

I've never heard anyone refer to Cheney as a "dumbass". Maybe evil overlord, mastermind, etc, but dumbass? Compared to Biden? I need some of whatever you are smoking Chaz.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he was talking about, as compared to McCain's veep nominee, Sarah Palin.

GasBandit;406518][QUOTE=Espy said:

I've never heard anyone refer to Cheney as a "dumbass". Maybe evil overlord, mastermind, etc, but dumbass? Compared to Biden? I need some of whatever you are smoking Chaz.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he was talking about, as compared to McCain's veep nominee, Sarah Palin.[/QUOTE]

Oh, well that makes more sense, he said "his vp" not his "running mate" so I assumed he was referring back to an actual vp.

i enjoy political discussions better when real words are used vs snappy terms like obamabots and obamacare or putting 'gate' on the end of something.

what president was 100% awesome in the last 50 years?

Bushbot

Chibibar said:

The oil spill is Obama's fault

Click to expand...

WHAT??
You mean that's what the people think, right? RIIIIGHT??

Chazwozel said:

Dick Cheney Quotes - Stupid Quotes by Dick Cheney

Click to expand...

Some of those quotes were objectionable, some of those quotes later were shown to be wrong... but few of them were outright as stupid as telling Chuck Graham to stand up or talking about how Obama is the first clean and articulate African American.

GasBandit;406574][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:

Dick Cheney Quotes - Stupid Quotes by Dick Cheney

Click to expand...

Some of those quotes were objectionable, some of those quotes later were shown to be wrong... but few of them were outright as stupid as telling Chuck Graham to stand up or talking about how Obama is the first clean and articulate African American.[/QUOTE]

They are both stupid sets of quotes, how is "This is a big fucking deal" irrational, strange, or stupid in referring to passing the long fought health care legislation.

Also -gate is the dumbest thing ever, it was Watergate because that was the name of the damn building that the shit occurred in. So why would it make any sense to add half of the name of a building to incidents that have nothing to do with that.

Also it really negates a argument when you use obamacare, I am sorry I didn't realize that he by himself created and passed the entire legislation. It works both way with republican things too.

Soliloquy said:

There's something that I'm actually curious about.

For those of you who voted for Obama: Think back. When you were at the ballot voting for the guy, what specifically were you hoping for him to accomplish at the time? Try to be honest -- what was on your mind at the time as the reason you wanted this man to be president instead of McCain?

After remembering that, would you say he's fulfilled your expectations?

Click to expand...

He is starting to fulfill a lot, certainly I feel he has made our country look more like a world player than an egotistical bully. Although he hasn't even served half of his term, he still has lots of time to get going on stuff.

GasBandit;406492][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:

Also his VP isn't a complete dumbass.

Click to expand...

His embarrasing public mistakes are so numerous they have to make "Top 10 Biden Gaffe" lists. He's been the best Vice Presidential Joke Factory since Dan Quayle.[/QUOTE]Yes, Biden makes stupid mistakes when he's talking. This is true, but not particularly terrible. If that is the only thing Bush had done wrong, we'd be much better off. However, it is also true that he at least knew what the job of Vice President was and what the responsibilities were before accepting the offer to be a candidates running mate. That puts him much further ahead in the "not a dumbass" department than a certain former Governor.

Vote on ties in the Senate, and take over if the President is killed. Other than that the VP has no real responsibility until the President gives them some.

Oh Gas you forgot Biden's latest one of telling a restaurant owner to stop being a smartass.

It's pretty effin' funny when Sarah Palin and Joe Biden put Dan Quayle in perspective...and sad.

crono1224 said:

They are both stupid sets of quotes, how is "This is a big fucking deal" irrational, strange, or stupid in referring to passing the long fought health care legislation.

Click to expand...

If he'd said it later, without a live mic on his lapel and not in front of 10 TV cameras and the entire Washington Press Corps, you'd have a point there. That he did so is why it is funny and stupid.

Also -gate is the dumbest thing ever, it was Watergate because that was the name of the damn building that the shit occurred in. So why would it make any sense to add half of the name of a building to incidents that have nothing to do with that.

Click to expand...

Because Watergate was the first scandal of its magnitude, and the nature of the english language is to associate similar things with similar names. -Gate is a handy suffix that attaches easily to most other words. Does it get overused? Yes. Does that invalidate it? Not really.

Also it really negates a argument when you use obamacare, I am sorry I didn't realize that he by himself created and passed the entire legislation. It works both way with republican things too.

Click to expand...

He personally championed it, made it his driving issue for months, and signed his name to it. Without Obama, there likely would not have been Obamacare.

Just wait until the whole thing starts crashing down, and somebody will call it "ObamaCareGate"

And then we'll know they are the stupidest people on the planet.

Krisken said:

And then we'll know they are the stupidest people on the planet.

Click to expand...

As it's usually the mainstream media that's first to jump on the -gate bandwagon, I'd say we pretty much already know.

Just so we're in full disclosure mode too, let's not forget that both the major parties are on the receiving end of -gate suffixes too... they were calling the Valerie Plame rigamarole "Rovegate."

GasBandit;407066][QUOTE=Krisken said:

And then we'll know they are the stupidest people on the planet.

Click to expand...

As it's usually the mainstream media that's first to jump on the -gate bandwagon, I'd say we pretty much already know.

Just so we're in full disclosure mode too, let's not forget that both the major parties are on the receiving end of -gate suffixes too... they were calling the Valerie Plame rigamarole "Rovegate."[/QUOTE]
Yup. And the people who said it were stupid.

No one said either side is unorignial and/or uncreative in comming up with names.

GasBandit said:

I think the problem stems from Obama being perfectly willing to leave Bush's mistakes in place while he adds blunders of his own. How's that patriot act repeal going? Gitmo still open too?

Click to expand...

Uhh, maybe Gitmo is still open because the government can't just dump terrorists on the street.
But it is in the process of being closed.
It's not easy shutting down a maximum-level security prison that holds the most dangerous criminals.

Musashi;417497][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

I think the problem stems from Obama being perfectly willing to leave Bush's mistakes in place while he adds blunders of his own. How's that patriot act repeal going? Gitmo still open too?

Click to expand...

Uhh, maybe Gitmo is still open because the government can't just dump terrorists on the street.
But it is in the process of being closed.
It's not easy shutting down a maximum-level security prison that holds the most dangerous criminals.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that pretty much why everyone was harping on Obama for wanting to close down Gitmo?

Soliloquy;417720][QUOTE=Musashi;417497][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

I think the problem stems from Obama being perfectly willing to leave Bush's mistakes in place while he adds blunders of his own. How's that patriot act repeal going? Gitmo still open too?

Click to expand...

Uhh, maybe Gitmo is still open because the government can't just dump terrorists on the street.
But it is in the process of being closed.
It's not easy shutting down a maximum-level security prison that holds the most dangerous criminals.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that pretty much why everyone was harping on Obama for wanting to close down Gitmo?[/QUOTE]

but before they are are harping Obama TO close Gitmo since Bush said he would after the whole Gitmo incident.

but now, the American realize that the government would have to move these terrorist to U.S. soil.

Soliloquy;417720][QUOTE=Musashi;417497][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

I think the problem stems from Obama being perfectly willing to leave Bush's mistakes in place while he adds blunders of his own. How's that patriot act repeal going? Gitmo still open too?

Click to expand...

Uhh, maybe Gitmo is still open because the government can't just dump terrorists on the street.
But it is in the process of being closed.
It's not easy shutting down a maximum-level security prison that holds the most dangerous criminals.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that pretty much why everyone was harping on Obama for wanting to close down Gitmo?[/QUOTE]

I don't think "everyone was harping on Obama for wanting to close down Gitmo."

In fact, I think that a lot of people wanted it closed.

Even if a lot of people did want Gitmo to stay open, it's clearly against the eighth amendment of the United States' constitution -- "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

"Cruel and unusual punishment" being, of course, torture.

You boys ready for you cock-meat sandwiches? Extra mayo?

And here comes the Gitmo argument. They are not civil prisoners. They are POWs in an ongoing war. But by that definition, and the reality that the war on terror will never end, does that mean we can indefinitely imprison terrorists? What if they are citizens?

Well then, what about cartel members? They are in many ways more dangerous as a whole, and the war on drugs is never going to end either. So can we now just lock them up forever? What about people who aid them? Does that include people who buy drugs (remember that superbowl commercial?) So now people who buy drugs can be locked up indefinitely without a trial? Uh oh.

Honestly, the Gitmo argument lends itself to slippery slopes in many ways, mainly the fact that it sets a potentially dangerous precedent while using very flexible definitions. So I don't think all of the slippery slope arguments are unjustified. However, I also don't think this is a case of a power grab by the government as much as I think it's a case of a very new and very frightening type of threat that the current legal system simply doesn't know how to deal with, and honestly may be incapable of doing so.

If you do try them as civil prisoners, do you realize how hard it will be to get convictions on a suspected terrorist? And then, what is the conviction? That they were planning to do something? Oh, and how do you justify the extradition from their native soil?

I am disappointed that Bush Administration backed away from that Super Bowl ad.