Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Advanced

Yes We Can

Posted by rkj 
rkj
January 20, 2009 05:59PM
At long last, an articulate man in the White house.

Jeepers, that has been a long time coming!

I'm so proud of us!
January 20, 2009 07:23PM
Quote
rkj
At long last, an articulate man in the White house.

Jeepers, that has been a long time coming!

I'm so proud of us!

I'm proud of you guys too...you finally saw through all the lies and deceit. You've taken back control of your country.

The ship may be listing and taking on water but I have a feeling that with a new master at the helm, the bilge pumps can be restarted, the keel trimmed and the course corrected.

It's going to be a tough job and there are sure to be more tough times ahead but there is going to have to be some hurt and sacrifice to make this work.

Let the healing begin! thumbs up
rkj
January 20, 2009 08:37PM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
Quote
rkj
At long last, an articulate man in the White house.

Jeepers, that has been a long time coming!

I'm so proud of us!

I'm proud of you guys too...you finally saw through all the lies and deceit. You've taken back control of your country.

The ship may be listing and taking on water but I have a feeling that with a new master at the helm, the bilge pumps can be restarted, the keel trimmed and the course corrected.

It's going to be a tough job and there are sure to be more tough times ahead but there is going to have to be some hurt and sacrifice to make this work.

Let the healing begin! thumbs up

I think its more like we got holed Peter, but at least there will be some truth coming down the pike now, now that those criminals are gone! I noticed Obama put a hold on all the decisions/policies made/put in place by bush right after the swear in... smart move, did you hear about the guy in Utah that put the bush land auction for the oil guys in a tailspin; what a story (another smart guy with balls).

At last, tides are going to change. I'm almost proud to be an american already smiling smiley

Tanks Archie smileys with beer
January 20, 2009 10:13PM
Quote
rkj
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
Quote
rkj
At long last, an articulate man in the White house.

Jeepers, that has been a long time coming!

I'm so proud of us!

I'm proud of you guys too...you finally saw through all the lies and deceit. You've taken back control of your country.

The ship may be listing and taking on water but I have a feeling that with a new master at the helm, the bilge pumps can be restarted, the keel trimmed and the course corrected.

It's going to be a tough job and there are sure to be more tough times ahead but there is going to have to be some hurt and sacrifice to make this work.

Let the healing begin! thumbs up

I think its more like we got holed Peter, but at least there will be some truth coming down the pike now, now that those criminals are gone! I noticed Obama put a hold on all the decisions/policies made/put in place by bush right after the swear in... smart move, did you hear about the guy in Utah that put the bush land auction for the oil guys in a tailspin; what a story (another smart guy with balls).

At last, tides are going to change. I'm almost proud to be an american already smiling smiley

Tanks Archie smileys with beer

I haven't seen the tv since this morning and turned it off when they when to privacy mode at the luncheon.
Freezing everything was one of the best things he could have done. This way his team can look closely at was was going on and monitor things.
I didn't hear about the Bush land auction; got any links?

It's kind of sad that so many die hard republicans are such sore losers. I've seen no fewer than 6 threads locked and/or deleted on some other forums I frequent. They nearly all started as congratulatory posts from folks outside of the US. Within seconds of posting, there were replies of the usual republican rhetoric but unlike the ones during the campaign, these ones(from the same people) are down right mean and childish. I lost a lot of respect for some of those people...why can't they be like McCain who lost gratiously and is now working with the President to reform the damage that has been done?

Apart from a few small minded people, I think Americans can be proud of themselves for realizing the need for change and doing something about it; ie turfing the crooks in a democratic manner and voting in a chance for survival.

You may have noticed that during his speech, Obama only used the word 'I' three times while everything he said that had to do with restoration was 'We'. Restoration and resurrection from these past 8 years of darkness can only be brought about by a united effort with everyone working together and doing their part.
Those who try to get in the way and carry on with business as usual are in for some big surprises eye popping smiley

I wouldn't doubt that the lists of indictments have already been partially written and we'll be seeing some pretty familiar names coming before the courts by summer.

He said something in his speech that makes me think the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act may be getting a major rewrite or maybe even be repealed.

I know I'm not an American but what goes in the US so it goes in Canada. If it's good for America, it's good for Canada!

We'll be going back to the polls again in the next month and maybe this time we'll get it right grinning smiley

You can sleep well tonight; you folks have done a good deed smileys with beer
rkj
January 20, 2009 10:22PM
January 20, 2009 11:15PM
Quote
rkj
smileys with beer hot smiley smiling smiley smileys with beer

Sure wish I had some Samuel Adams Boston Lager right now smiling smileyo
January 21, 2009 06:49AM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
It's kind of sad that so many die hard republicans are such sore losers. I've seen no fewer than 6 threads locked and/or deleted on some other forums I frequent. They nearly all started as congratulatory posts from folks outside of the US. Within seconds of posting, there were replies of the usual republican rhetoric but unlike the ones during the campaign, these ones(from the same people) are down right mean and childish. I lost a lot of respect for some of those people...why can't they be like McCain who lost gratiously and is now working with the President to reform the damage that has been done?

Apart from a few small minded people, I think Americans can be proud of themselves for realizing the need for change and doing something about it; ie turfing the crooks in a democratic manner and voting in a chance for survival.

I just had to comment on this...

I am not a Diehard republican, nor even an Energizer republican (yuk yuk), and this guy is my president even though I didn't vote for him and disagree with him on just about everything. However, were you disappointed in and have you commented on all the die hard democrats who for the last 8 years have been screaming "selected, not elected," "he's not my president," and driving around with "1/20/09 = Bush's last day" bumper stickers? Those people, and there are plenty (as well as the ones you mention) are truly un-American and IMO should lose their right to vote. You can't be a pansy and whine and complain if your guy doesn't win. Work to change the system if you believe it's broken, or move somewhere else. We don't want them here!

I know quite a lot of people who did not vote for Obama (it's hard to not know a lot, because 12 out of every 25 voters did not vote for him), and I have yet to hear a single person say anything other than what I said: "I didn't vote for him, and I will disagree with him, but he's my duly elected president and he has my full support." So while I'm sure there are those like you mentioned, and I don't appreciate them either, but I just wish I heard the same kinds of negative comments about the dissenters that I've been seeing for the last 8 years.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
January 21, 2009 10:47AM
You're absolutely right, the dissenters are rarely part of any solution.
The people who actually get things done are the ones like Colin Powell; a republican; who supported who he though was the best man running and John McCain who ran against Obama but is now working to be part of the solution in any way he can.

You do have to admit that any jubilation over Bush's last day in office is pretty we founded though. He and the other crooks in Washington and Wall Street or even in our capital in Canada and Bay Street; are largely responsible for the mess we find ourselves in today.

We, the common people are partly to blame too, because we allowed them to do what they have done and many of us blindly went along for the ride sad smiley

All of us are going to have to work together to get this job done; vocal dissenters and sore losers(doesn't matter what party they support or dis) will only slow the process.
rkj
January 21, 2009 10:08PM
Quote
Cab Treadway
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
It's kind of sad that so many die hard republicans are such sore losers. I've seen no fewer than 6 threads locked and/or deleted on some other forums I frequent. They nearly all started as congratulatory posts from folks outside of the US. Within seconds of posting, there were replies of the usual republican rhetoric but unlike the ones during the campaign, these ones(from the same people) are down right mean and childish. I lost a lot of respect for some of those people...why can't they be like McCain who lost gratiously and is now working with the President to reform the damage that has been done?

Apart from a few small minded people, I think Americans can be proud of themselves for realizing the need for change and doing something about it; ie turfing the crooks in a democratic manner and voting in a chance for survival.

I just had to comment on this...

I am not a Diehard republican, nor even an Energizer republican (yuk yuk), and this guy is my president even though I didn't vote for him and disagree with him on just about everything. However, were you disappointed in and have you commented on all the die hard democrats who for the last 8 years have been screaming "selected, not elected," "he's not my president," and driving around with "1/20/09 = Bush's last day" bumper stickers? Those people, and there are plenty (as well as the ones you mention) are truly un-American and IMO should lose their right to vote. You can't be a pansy and whine and complain if your guy doesn't win. Work to change the system if you believe it's broken, or move somewhere else. We don't want them here!

I know quite a lot of people who did not vote for Obama (it's hard to not know a lot, because 12 out of every 25 voters did not vote for him), and I have yet to hear a single person say anything other than what I said: "I didn't vote for him, and I will disagree with him, but he's my duly elected president and he has my full support." So while I'm sure there are those like you mentioned, and I don't appreciate them either, but I just wish I heard the same kinds of negative comments about the dissenters that I've been seeing for the last 8 years.

The fact that you're against so much of what Obama stands for puzzles me Cab. If you look at what hes done already, in just one day, it makes all the sense in the world; and the way he speaks and what he sez sure sounds wonderful to me. I know you're a reasonable man, so what is it that bothers you?

His powers will be limited and I'm sure there will be all kinds of things down the road but I sure think this guy is a straight shooter. A complete breath of fresh air as far as I can see!
January 21, 2009 10:56PM
Quote
rkj
At long last, an articulate man in the White house.

Jeepers, that has been a long time coming!

I'm so proud of us!

I'm right there with you. This is the best thing to happen to this country in a long time.

John
January 22, 2009 07:48AM
Quote
rkj
The fact that you're against so much of what Obama stands for puzzles me Cab. If you look at what hes done already, in just one day, it makes all the sense in the world; and the way he speaks and what he sez sure sounds wonderful to me. I know you're a reasonable man, so what is it that bothers you?

I'm against most "liberal" policies in government. I'm in favor of small government that leaves business mostly alone (regulations ensuring a fair marketplace are good, but I don't like gov't getting involved too much), that encourages individual rights and responsibilities instead of gov't intervention, and that is not concerned with protecting its citizens from themselves. Although I don't agree on every little point, I find the main values of the Libertarian Party (link to their website, if you're interested) to be pretty much in line with what I believe.

I have no problem with programs like welfare, but I do have a problem with systems that allow people to sponge off of society instead of using it simply to get themselves back on their feet.

I am against high taxes. I think that everyone should pay into the public coffers for things like public and national defense, some financial oversight, and infrastructure. Most of the rest of it is stuff that can be handled better, faster, and far more efficiently by private business.

I don't want "free" or nationalized health care. In fact I think the health care system in this country needs a major overhaul. I guess a health insurance option provided by the gov't for people who do not have such an option through their work is okay, but if someone chooses not to exercise that option and has to go into the hospital, they should be given care for their dire injuries and sent on their way if they are unwilling or unable to pay the costs of their care themselves. That should be their choice, and should carry consequences if they choose not to protect themselves.

I don't think we should be bailing out people and companies too stupid to make smart decisions. That is not a tax burden I feel like carrying, nor is it one I want to pass on to my children.

I don't want my kids to be required to participate in public service programs. I have nothing against public service, but it should be something that they do because as their parent I instill in them a value system that includes giving back to their community. I do not feel it is the gov't's job to tell me how to raise my kids. If I'm too ignorant, lazy, and stupid to raise them properly, then my consequence from that is having ignorant, lazy, and stupid kids who won't succeed in life, but that's part of being a responsible parent.

I am worried about how he will protect us as a country. I think closing Gitmo is short-sighted at best, downright dangerous at worst. Yes, some "icky" things probably happen there, but this is not a conventional war we're in. We are dealing with people who are not affiliated with another country or gov't, therefore there is no official declaration of war that we're dealing with. We're dealing with people who have proven they're willing to kill themselves to take out some of our citizens/buildings/institutions/etc, and if they know anything that can prevent future attacks, they're not going to share that with us just b/c we ask nicely. We can't try them as normal citizens and put them in jail, for a number of reasons, and so the alternative is what, just release them? And let them go back to planning the downfall of our country? Although, with the retention of Gates and Hillary as Sec. of State (maybe I don't agree much with her either, but she's no pushover), I don't think our country is quite going to topple over that soon.

I think he is too concerned with how the rest of the world views us. Yes, foreign relations are very important, but they should be secondary to fixing our problems at home. I think the borders are not well-protected enough as it is, and we need to get our own house in order before we worry about what France thinks of us. Besides, if the rest of the world thinks we're as bad as all that, why are people still trying to get into our country? Why do we continue to send aid in whatever form is most needed (money, troops to help clean up, ships with food/water/supplies) whenever there's a disaster somewhere? If the rest of the world doesn't like us, let them deal with their troubles themselves. Once we're in good shape here, then let's worry about our global image. I know it's not that simple, but that's what it boils down to.

Basically, I feel like a lot of his ideas sound good on paper, but when you consider how they are going to be paid for, IMO that's just not where gov't should be sticking its nose. I think that the size of the gov't is ridiculous and needs a serious hack job. Instead, in order to save ourselves from this economy that we've brought on ourselves, he wants to increase the size of the gov't, which will require raising taxes (despite what he says about most of our taxes going down or at least not increasing).

Quote
The Rickster
His powers will be limited and I'm sure there will be all kinds of things down the road but I sure think this guy is a straight shooter. A complete breath of fresh air as far as I can see!

His powers will hardly be limited, he has both houses of Congress ready to do whatever he wants. He has nominees for Treasury Secretary who doesn't even pay his own taxes until it comes up in the nomination process that it looks bad, and then in the confirmation hearings is told "you're going to get confirmed, but just answer these questions for the fun of it."

How is he a straight shooter? There are numerous examples of campaign promises he's made that he has already broken. He promised to bring fresh new faces to DC, and then has loaded up his staff with former Clinton folk, people who have been in and around Washington forever. He's nominated guys embroiled in controversy for key positions (Richardson and Geithner). How much involved with the whole Blagojevich was he? Why can't we get any kind of straight answers about that, instead of this huge "he said/he said/no he didn't/yes he did" mess?

On a personal level, I think he's a helluva guy. He's very smart, thoughtful, well-educated, articulate (in comparison makes Bush look even worse than he did on his own), has a great smile, wonderful charisma, has a good-looking family that he adores... all qualities I admire and respect in any man. I'm sure he's the cat's meow as far as that goes. And maybe I'll be totally pleased with everything he does from here on out. I am ready, willing and able to give him the benefit of the doubt and all the chances in the world, but I'm not one of the converted masses who think he's the second coming simply because he gave some flowery speeches.

Breath of fresh air? Absolutely right! Whatever you do, do not associate my misgivings about the new guy with any loyalty or respect for the last guy. I don't like a lot about Bush, and I think the country as a whole will be better for putting him behind us. I'm not at all saying that Bush was better, I'm just saying that I don't think Obama is the kind of president I want. It's his job to win me over. It's my job to be highly skeptical of anyone who takes this job until I am convinced that they're good for the country, the world, and me. I also don't think McCain was my perfect president, either. I didn't vote for either one of those candidates. So don't confuse my comments with the thought that McCain would have done the job how I wanted. In this case, I didn't have a horse in the race, no one is likely to want to do things how I want, but that doesn't change the fact that I do not believe this guy is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I obviously would have preferred McCain over Obama, IMO it would have been the slightly lesser of two poor choices (as Paul Simon wrote, "either way you look at this, you lose"), but he didn't represent me in any significant fashion, either.

I really hate how he's been treated in the media, too. They have done everything short of putting on kneepads and a blue dress for him. So far we have a lot of promises, ideas (however unrealistic), and some great speeches. Beyond that, we have an appalling lack of experience in either the public or private sectors, and I find it astonishing how everyone thinks a junior first-term Senator with ideas well outside of the mainstream is so "obviously" the right choice for the job. There is very little healthy skepticism I've been reading or hearing, and that worries me. When people like Chris Mathews say "it's my job to make this presidency successful," we have a serious problem with the news.

He's the POTUS; I will take offense at anyone who says otherwise and I'll defend his office with all that I have. I hope I'm happy with how he handles the job, I actually have been mostly pleased with what he did during the transition period. I just am not ready to roll over and proclaim him the best thing in the world, no matter what he does, like so many in this country and the world seem to be ready to do.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
rkj
January 22, 2009 03:56PM
Quote
Cab Treadway
Quote
rkj
The fact that you're against so much of what Obama stands for puzzles me Cab. If you look at what hes done already, in just one day, it makes all the sense in the world; and the way he speaks and what he sez sure sounds wonderful to me. I know you're a reasonable man, so what is it that bothers you?

smiling smiley Wow, you ask a simple question!

I'm against most "liberal" policies in government. I'm in favor of small government that leaves business mostly alone (regulations ensuring a fair marketplace are good, but I don't like gov't getting involved too much), that encourages individual rights and responsibilities instead of gov't intervention, and that is not concerned with protecting its citizens from themselves. Although I don't agree on every little point, I find the main values of the Libertarian Party (link to their website, if you're interested) to be pretty much in line with what I believe.

smiling smiley I don't care for the government protecting us from ourselves either although there are times when it might come in handy. The problem we have when it comes to making these statements is there are pretty much always going to be exceptions....

I have no problem with programs like welfare, but I do have a problem with systems that allow people to sponge off of society instead of using it simply to get themselves back on their feet.

smiling smiley I think there is always going to be people who take advantage of well meaning programs, although a few updates are in order!

I am against high taxes. I think that everyone should pay into the public coffers for things like public and national defense, some financial oversight, and infrastructure. Most of the rest of it is stuff that can be handled better, faster, and far more efficiently by private business.

smiling smiley I think this point is going to be an interesting test for him, lets see what happens. I'll be the first to say something for or against what he does on taxes. I personally feel the working man is burdened too much as it is.

I don't want "free" or nationalized health care. In fact I think the health care system in this country needs a major overhaul. I guess a health insurance option provided by the gov't for people who do not have such an option through their work is okay, but if someone chooses not to exercise that option and has to go into the hospital, they should be given care for their dire injuries and sent on their way if they are unwilling or unable to pay the costs of their care themselves. That should be their choice, and should carry consequences if they choose not to protect themselves.

smiling smiley I'm confused by this Cab, there is no health care in this country, it is deplorable as it stands. A major overhaul, how about a starting point!

I don't think we should be bailing out people and companies too stupid to make smart decisions. That is not a tax burden I feel like carrying, nor is it one I want to pass on to my children.

smiling smiley I agree completely but here again, there are going to be cases where intervention is necessary. But if there are then the policies have to be clear and right thinking for sure, no bullshit zone!

I don't want my kids to be required to participate in public service programs. I have nothing against public service, but it should be something that they do because as their parent I instill in them a value system that includes giving back to their community. I do not feel it is the gov't's job to tell me how to raise my kids. If I'm too ignorant, lazy, and stupid to raise them properly, then my consequence from that is having ignorant, lazy, and stupid kids who won't succeed in life, but that's part of being a responsible parent.

smiling smiley You want to hear something crazy, I believe everybody should do a hitch in the army or some arm of the services, I believe that it is a good thing all around (personal and country). I agree, your children do their learning from what you do, at home.

I am worried about how he will protect us as a country. I think closing Gitmo is short-sighted at best, downright dangerous at worst. Yes, some "icky" things probably happen there, but this is not a conventional war we're in. We are dealing with people who are not affiliated with another country or gov't, therefore there is no official declaration of war that we're dealing with. We're dealing with people who have proven they're willing to kill themselves to take out some of our citizens/buildings/institutions/etc, and if they know anything that can prevent future attacks, they're not going to share that with us just b/c we ask nicely. We can't try them as normal citizens and put them in jail, for a number of reasons, and so the alternative is what, just release them? And let them go back to planning the downfall of our country? Although, with the retention of Gates and Hillary as Sec. of State (maybe I don't agree much with her either, but she's no pushover), I don't think our country is quite going to topple over that soon.

smiling smiley I think this horror show should be shut down right now-without question- Its is the worst abomination ever conceived.... there are certain conditions/rights that should be afforded to everyone, and that means everyone. There needs to be a better solution in general!

I think he is too concerned with how the rest of the world views us. Yes, foreign relations are very important, but they should be secondary to fixing our problems at home. I think the borders are not well-protected enough as it is, and we need to get our own house in order before we worry about what France thinks of us. Besides, if the rest of the world thinks we're as bad as all that, why are people still trying to get into our country? Why do we continue to send aid in whatever form is most needed (money, troops to help clean up, ships with food/water/supplies) whenever there's a disaster somewhere? If the rest of the world doesn't like us, let them deal with their troubles themselves. Once we're in good shape here, then let's worry about our global image. I know it's not that simple, but that's what it boils down to.

smiling smiley I agree somewhat but I think the world as cause for viewing us in a bad light and that fact is a bad omen, we need to fix it if possible, and yes, its going to take awhile...

Basically, I feel like a lot of his ideas sound good on paper, but when you consider how they are going to be paid for, IMO that's just not where gov't should be sticking its nose. I think that the size of the gov't is ridiculous and needs a serious hack job. Instead, in order to save ourselves from this economy that we've brought on ourselves, he wants to increase the size of the gov't, which will require raising taxes (despite what he says about most of our taxes going down or at least not increasing).

smiling smiley I think (and hope) he is on the right track and time will bear his work out. But at least I'm hopeful and gladly looking to a future and that is something that has not been the case for many a moon!

Quote
The Rickster
His powers will be limited and I'm sure there will be all kinds of things down the road but I sure think this guy is a straight shooter. A complete breath of fresh air as far as I can see!

His powers will hardly be limited, he has both houses of Congress ready to do whatever he wants. He has nominees for Treasury Secretary who doesn't even pay his own taxes until it comes up in the nomination process that it looks bad, and then in the confirmation hearings is told "you're going to get confirmed, but just answer these questions for the fun of it."

smiling smiley Good, I hope he has all the power he needs to break many bad policies and practicies, this government is so broken its not funny. I did not like that tax crap either (I think there should've been more accounting there), it spoke badly of him right off the bat.

How is he a straight shooter? There are numerous examples of campaign promises he's made that he has already broken. He promised to bring fresh new faces to DC, and then has loaded up his staff with former Clinton folk, people who have been in and around Washington forever. He's nominated guys embroiled in controversy for key positions (Richardson and Geithner). How much involved with the whole Blagojevich was he? Why can't we get any kind of straight answers about that, instead of this huge "he said/he said/no he didn't/yes he did" mess?

smiling smiley I just think he speaks from the heart (don't get me wrong, I know he is a politician) but some how I think he is very different; new/fresh and unwilling to see the same old crap be in place... I think (I know very little about these people) the people he has appointed, from what I've read, seem to be good choices and time will tell. My hope is that if someone does not work out then he/she will not hang for long.

On a personal level, I think he's a helluva guy. He's very smart, thoughtful, well-educated, articulate (in comparison makes Bush look even worse than he did on his own), has a great smile, wonderful charisma, has a good-looking family that he adores... all qualities I admire and respect in any man. I'm sure he's the cat's meow as far as that goes. And maybe I'll be totally pleased with everything he does from here on out. I am ready, willing and able to give him the benefit of the doubt and all the chances in the world, but I'm not one of the converted masses who think he's the second coming simply because he gave some flowery speeches.

smiling smiley I agree......totally

Breath of fresh air? Absolutely right! Whatever you do, do not associate my misgivings about the new guy with any loyalty or respect for the last guy. I don't like a lot about Bush, and I think the country as a whole will be better for putting him behind us. I'm not at all saying that Bush was better, I'm just saying that I don't think Obama is the kind of president I want. It's his job to win me over. It's my job to be highly skeptical of anyone who takes this job until I am convinced that they're good for the country, the world, and me. I also don't think McCain was my perfect president, either. I didn't vote for either one of those candidates. So don't confuse my comments with the thought that McCain would have done the job how I wanted. In this case, I didn't have a horse in the race, no one is likely to want to do things how I want, but that doesn't change the fact that I do not believe this guy is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I obviously would have preferred McCain over Obama, IMO it would have been the slightly lesser of two poor choices (as Paul Simon wrote, "either way you look at this, you lose"), but he didn't represent me in any significant fashion, either.

smiling smiley Well, I think McCain would have been a horrible choice but to each his own... I am glad, and feel the same as you do, in that we shall see what is on tap from here on.

I really hate how he's been treated in the media, too. They have done everything short of putting on kneepads and a blue dress for him. So far we have a lot of promises, ideas (however unrealistic), and some great speeches. Beyond that, we have an appalling lack of experience in either the public or private sectors, and I find it astonishing how everyone thinks a junior first-term Senator with ideas well outside of the mainstream is so "obviously" the right choice for the job. There is very little healthy skepticism I've been reading or hearing, and that worries me. When people like Chris Mathews say "it's my job to make this presidency successful," we have a serious problem with the news.

smiling smiley I am actually glad to see unity in the media, I think everybody is hopeful and that is nice to see for once! although I'm starting to get media burn, I find myself sitting here with the set off more and more lately

He's the POTUS; I will take offense at anyone who says otherwise and I'll defend his office with all that I have. I hope I'm happy with how he handles the job, I actually have been mostly pleased with what he did during the transition period. I just am not ready to roll over and proclaim him the best thing in the world, no matter what he does, like so many in this country and the world seem to be ready to do.

You know Buddy, a friend of mine (the one that I skipper that nice sail boat for) just keeled over and died last week, just like that; had his dinner and over he went. I've been here ever since wondering how it was going to be without Al Stewart.

Sitting here, making sense, talking to you helps..... Peace
January 22, 2009 09:33PM
Cab that was a great answer and I can not agree with you more. I just don't see how the president can fix an unfixable thing. Health care, the economy, you name it, the president is powerless to fix anything unless he is willing to cause pain to every American. I just don't see any politician capable of doing that these days. When our country was founded those men, the founding fathers, had to be willing to sacrifice everything for their country and most did. Today it is just about money, popularity, and power. It has nothing to do with what is best for the country. I am sorry to say that IMO the US has been going down the wrong path for too long and it will have to hurt to get back on track. Most think only of themselves and really could care less about the country as a whole. I wonder how many people really are willing to "ask not what their country can do for them"? That is what all the pomp is about...the country is asking what the government can do for them. Save me from the banking industry and the greedy bastards on wall street. Save us from the medical industry and insurance people. Don't let them take my home that I can't afford. Save me from loosing my job. I deserve to drive a $60,000 SUV and eat out at fancy restaurants five nights a week. Reality check! These problems can only be solved by individuals willing to sacrifice their standard of living and go back to providing for oneself. And the other reality is that if I get cancer I might have to make the hard decision and chose death over huge medical bills. Is that so hard to understand? Death and disease are a part of mortality and so is ED...Viagra is not the answer and neither is spending a few trillion uncollected dollars. I suspect we are all going to get stimulated whether we want to be or not! Hold onto your wallets because I believe we are thinking with the little head at the moment, and there is a fox in the whore house! Oh, and by the way, I refrained from voting for anyone on the ballot this past election so I am past hope or Camelot!
January 22, 2009 09:43PM
Quote
Cab Treadway



I am worried about how he will protect us as a country. I think closing Gitmo is short-sighted at best, downright dangerous at worst. Yes, some "icky" things probably happen there, but this is not a conventional war we're in. We are dealing with people who are not affiliated with another country or gov't, therefore there is no official declaration of war that we're dealing with. We're dealing with people who have proven they're willing to kill themselves to take out some of our citizens/buildings/institutions/etc, and if they know anything that can prevent future attacks, they're not going to share that with us just b/c we ask nicely. We can't try them as normal citizens and put them in jail, for a number of reasons, and so the alternative is what, just release them? And let them go back to planning the downfall of our country? Although, with the retention of Gates and Hillary as Sec. of State (maybe I don't agree much with her either, but she's no pushover), I don't think our country is quite going to topple over that soon.



Cab,

I've composed a thousand replies to his in my head since I saw this post at lunch today and I know I won't be anywhere near as clear now that I'm actually typing as those lost posts, but here goes anyway.

To start with I'd like to thank you for your eloquent post in another thread that was very gay rights friendly. That issue hits close to home for me. My sister and her partner deserve the same treatment and rights as everyone else in this country. I'm glad you support that.

Now, on to what's bugging me in this thread. In a post upthread, you mentioned that you think people who display anti-Bush stickers and say he's not *their* president are un-american. I disagree. The first amendment guarantees their right to say just exactly those kinds of things. It may be tacky, but I think it's pretty clear that they are expressing a political point of view and that's protected by the first amendment to the Constitution, a document I hope we will be dusting off and using again now that Obama is in office. I believe a lot of dangerous stuff gets published that uses the first amendment to justify it's existence that I think needs to be looked at a little more closely in the future. By this I mean the right wing screeds that incite violence against the left. For example, Ann Coulter has written more than once about "hunting" liberals. I live in Knoxville, Tennessee. That's where the nutcase gunman went into a Unitarian Church last summer and shot the place up. He killed two people and injured a bunch more, and that's only the physical side of it. Can you imagine what it must have done to the kids performing in the play that day to witness that? This is also a "close to home" thing for me. I have a lot of friends in that church, and my wife is even a member, although she doesn't attend any more. The point of that story is that the gunman had a nice big collection of those books. Those kinds of words are dangerous, saying you want Bush out of office is not, and those books are written by people who like to tell us over and over again about how "American" they are and how "un-american" people like me are.

Guantanamo. What happened there was not "Icky." You might use a word like "illegal" or "immoral", but icky just doesn't cut it. Waterboarding, which we know happened at Guantanamo, is torture. Torture does not produce good intelligence and torture is illegal. The US has signed treaties that make torture illegal, the Geneva Conventions for one, and according to the constitution, treaties become a part of the law of the land. The one thing I am afraid Obama will disappoint me on is the prosecution of these horrible crimes. After WW2 the US tried, convicted, and executed a lot of Germans and Japanese for waterboarding. It would be a huge mistake to just look the other way and pretend it isn't that important this time. It's a crime, it happened, and we need to have some trials to figure out exactly who did what and then hand out sentences to the guilty. No one is supposed to be above the law.

With all that said. I have to say I feel confident and hopeful about the future. Obama is a very smart guy and a constitutional scholar too. A guy like that will certainly have a lot more respect for the constitution than we've seen in a while.

John
January 22, 2009 10:28PM
John - I hear what you are saying, but I think there is a huge difference between individual rights and the rights of individuals. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with a Clint Eastwood movie called Dirty Harry. In it Callahan torments and to some degree tortures a suspect to make him tell where a little girl is that is already dead. Because the suspects rights were violated he was not even prosecuted. Harry eventually blows the guy away because the system has failed. I learned a saying a few years back that integrity is defined by knowing what you have the right to do and then doing the right thing. I believe that most people are only concerned about what they have the right to do and could care less about the rest. Sometimes you have to do the right thing and that requires getting dirty. It might not be pretty, but in the end we are all better off for having done the deed. Only history can tell, but I find it fascinating that the Germans loved Hitler and voted him into power and implemented everything he thought was right to promote the Aryan race. I think we all know how that turned out. I also think that the president has a lot more information than the rest of us do and it is his job to make tough decisions for the good of us all. Lincoln freed the slaves and there was much bloodshed. That was not popular, but in the end the US was better for having rectified the situation. Bush bashing is unacceptable because the office of the president deserves more respect than that. Not that a president is to be above criticism. Obama worship is the other extreme and IMO also unacceptable. I will respect him because he has been given the power to make decisions that I can not possibly be informed about and I will have to trust him in his office. I can not imagine that his job is an easy one and neither was Bush's. I hope he can do all that is anticipated and more. God bless this country!
January 23, 2009 07:26AM
Quote

To start with I'd like to thank you for your eloquent post in another thread that was very gay rights friendly. That issue hits close to home for me. My sister and her partner deserve the same treatment and rights as everyone else in this country. I'm glad you support that.

Thanks, I guess. That's just common sense to me, though. It has nothing to do with "gay rights," it has everything to do with "rights."

Quote

Now, on to what's bugging me in this thread. In a post upthread, you mentioned that you think people who display anti-Bush stickers and say he's not *their* president are un-american. I disagree. The first amendment guarantees their right to say just exactly those kinds of things. It may be tacky, but I think it's pretty clear that they are expressing a political point of view and that's protected by the first amendment to the Constitution, a document I hope we will be dusting off and using again now that Obama is in office.

Couldn't disagree more. Yes, the Constitution defends their rights to say whatever they want (withing certain limits). However, what these people have been saying is not "I disagree with him and look forward to the day when he is out of office." What they are saying is literally, "he's not my president." Well, yes, actually, he was. He was voted in legally and properly by the system that this country has in place, and to say otherwise is wrong, in fact one could squint really hard and make a case justifying that it's slightly treasonous to suggest otherwise. If you don't like that he was voted in, get angry with your fellow Americans who voted for him. But, and this is the important part, you still have to support the office of the presidency, even (especially) when you disagree with the person sitting in that office. To me, it didn't matter which main party candidate was elected in November, neither one of them embody my ideals for our country, but either one were to be respected and given the chance to do their job. The people to which I referred were not taking that approach at all, they were simply saying that GWB was not to be taken seriously or respected, simply because they didn't vote for him. That is un-American. It is the office of the presidency, not the person in it, that is important. If you don't like the person in there, do your part to make sure they (or their party's next choice) gets defeated, or move somewhere else where you can have "your" person in office. I feel the exact same way about anyone who says likewise now about our 44th President.

Quote

I believe a lot of dangerous stuff gets published that uses the first amendment to justify it's existence that I think needs to be looked at a little more closely in the future. By this I mean the right wing screeds that incite violence against the left. For example, Ann Coulter has written more than once about "hunting" liberals. I live in Knoxville, Tennessee. That's where the nutcase gunman went into a Unitarian Church last summer and shot the place up. He killed two people and injured a bunch more, and that's only the physical side of it. Can you imagine what it must have done to the kids performing in the play that day to witness that? This is also a "close to home" thing for me. I have a lot of friends in that church, and my wife is even a member, although she doesn't attend any more.

These types of situations are horrible, committed by the worst types of people. I am not defending them, I'm not defending their actions, they should rot in jail and then hell for what they did.

I am not a right-wing fanatic, I do not want to "hunt" anyone, well, I guess with the exception of people who are scheming to destroy our country like what happened on 9/11.

Quote

The point of that story is that the gunman had a nice big collection of those books.

Oh, so if he hadn't read those books, he wouldn't have shot and killed those people? So we should censor any kind of literature, movies, TV, video games, music, and talk to eliminate anything that is deemed "bad" so nobody will be turned bad by it? What happened to free speech that you defended above when it suited your views? I haven't heard much talk of it in the last few weeks, but there was talk for a while, however absurd, about employing the Fairness Doctrine to get rid of conservative talk radio. That smacks to me of censorship simply because the thing being talked about runs counter to what the person wanting to censor it believes in.

This sentiment coming from a country that has a large population of kids playing games like Grand Theft Auto, glorifying violence in all sorts of ways is laughable. That kind of stuff is okay, on a general societal level, because they're "just" video games, right? But go on an actual murderous rampage and have books found in your library, well, it's obviously the books' fault.

Quote

Those kinds of words are dangerous, saying you want Bush out of office is not, and those books are written by people who like to tell us over and over again about how "American" they are and how "un-american" people like me are.

Agreed. Saying you want Bush out of office or that you disagree with him and/or his policies is fine. Going farther than that is not, as I said above.

Quote

Guantanamo. What happened there was not "Icky." You might use a word like "illegal" or "immoral", but icky just doesn't cut it. Waterboarding, which we know happened at Guantanamo, is torture. Torture does not produce good intelligence and torture is illegal. The US has signed treaties that make torture illegal, the Geneva Conventions for one, and according to the constitution, treaties become a part of the law of the land. The one thing I am afraid Obama will disappoint me on is the prosecution of these horrible crimes. After WW2 the US tried, convicted, and executed a lot of Germans and Japanese for waterboarding. It would be a huge mistake to just look the other way and pretend it isn't that important this time. It's a crime, it happened, and we need to have some trials to figure out exactly who did what and then hand out sentences to the guilty. No one is supposed to be above the law.

Ok, fine. Let's all agree that there have been illegal and immoral actions taking place there. Great, we've agreed. So the solution is to sign an order that simply closes the prisons, even though we don't have any idea what we're going to do with the prisoners? That's ludicrous, IMO. He's commander in chief now, he should command the bases to cease and desist with any and all interrogations until we can figure out what the next step is. Maybe that leads to shutting them down entirely, maybe it simply leads to a serious change in tactics. Many of these prisoners are willing to die to carry out their missions against the US, so are they going to tell us anything if we shine a bright light in their eyes or just ask them nicely to talk?

The problem I have with things like the Geneva convention and "proper" actions during wartime is that it is outright impossible to win or adequately protect us when we're the only ones that have to abide by such things. Are the people who planned and carried out 9/11 beholden to the Geneva convention? Were the western journalists captured and beheaded on live TV treated fairly? I am not trying to say that we're justified in torture because of what the other side is doing, but at the same time we can't just sit around and act horrified by tactics used while trying to get information that could potentially keep us safe. You can say all you want that torture doesn't produce information, and like I said, Obama should take a close look at how we're doing what we're doing, but just stopping it is not the most prudent thing to do.

A problem with the "war on terror" is the public's perception of our national security. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was widespread support for anti-terror policies. We haven't had a major attack like that since. Because of that, the public support is waning, and the common belief is that our tactics are reprehensible and the whole thing should be shut down entirely, not just investigate and possibly change our tactics. I honestly have no idea if the lack of attacks has anything to do with the security measures that have been put in place, or if there has simply been nothing planned in the last 7 years. My fear is that if we go "soft on terror" that there will be another attack, and then the public outcry will be "why couldn't we stop this from happening?" It's seriously a no-win situation. If we prevent attacks, nobody knows they were going to happen and so the public assumes that we don't need to spend the money on anti-terrorism. If we don't prevent attacks, the public wonders why we couldn't defend our country. I don't know how to deal with that question, but IMO simply closing the bases when we don't know what to do with the prisoners is not the right answer.

Quote

With all that said. I have to say I feel confident and hopeful about the future. Obama is a very smart guy and a constitutional scholar too. A guy like that will certainly have a lot more respect for the constitution than we've seen in a while.

John

I'm confident and hopeful, too. I think that we will pull through any situation because we're a strong people. But it is my right and my duty to voice my opinion when I see things that I don't think are correct, just as it is yours.

Quote
John Yust
I've composed a thousand replies to his in my head since I saw this post at lunch today and I know I won't be anywhere near as clear now that I'm actually typing as those lost posts, but here goes anyway.

I do that, too, and by the time I post, it often bears little resemblance to what I'd thought in my head. In fact, while writing and reading this, I seem to make myself sound a lot different than I really feel. But I do feel that our security is of vital importance and we can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's clean it up, rethink it, but don't get ahead of ourselves and just release everyone who is quite likely to just turn around and start plotting against us immediately.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
January 23, 2009 07:34AM
Quote
wodcutr
Bush bashing is unacceptable because the office of the president deserves more respect than that.

I disagree with that. Bashing the person and/or their policies is fine, good healthy American discussions of political ideas. But not affording him or his office the respect he is due because our fellow Americans voted him president is not fine.

Quote

Obama worship is the other extreme and IMO also unacceptable. I will respect him because he has been given the power to make decisions that I can not possibly be informed about and I will have to trust him in his office.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Obama worship, either. But all these people who felt it was their American right and duty to protest when Bush was president have to realize that now it's their turn to be on the other side of that, and that there are fellow citizens who don't agree with the new guy, and understand that it's okay to not agree with the new guy. That sword cuts both ways.

Quote

I can not imagine that his job is an easy one and neither was Bush's.

Amen to that. I can't imagine wanting this job.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
January 23, 2009 11:20AM
Quote
Cab Treadway



I do that, too, and by the time I post, it often bears little resemblance to what I'd thought in my head. In fact, while writing and reading this, I seem to make myself sound a lot different than I really feel. But I do feel that our security is of vital importance and we can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's clean it up, rethink it, but don't get ahead of ourselves and just release everyone who is quite likely to just turn around and start plotting against us immediately.

I hope that doesn't mean you're mad as hell, but somehow managed to hold it together while typing. smiling smiley

I totally agree that we can't just throw the doors open and I don't think that's the plan. On the other hand we've had 7 years to figure out who's inocent and who isn't. We could have done that by now if we had even half tried and with our principles intact too.

As far as free speech goes. I'm 100% for it. I just don't think that "free speech" was ever meant to include speech that encourages people to go commit violent acts against people they disagree with. We don't know yet why the nut shot up the church, but I do believe that there is a lot of hateful stuff in those books and a lot of dehumanizing of liberals. That kind of thing doesn't help anyone understand someone else's point of view. It paints them as a target for pent up anger.

I'm glad you agree about torture. I hope you don't feel like I was jumping on your case too much. I'm getting wordy again, and this has to get done fast as lunch time is ending. I wanted to get this done now because my next chance to respond will be Sunday and I didn't want to leave this hanging until then. I've been enjoying this discussion and I hope you have too.

John
January 23, 2009 06:55PM
Quote
John Yust


As far as free speech goes. I'm 100% for it. I just don't think that "free speech" was ever meant to include speech that encourages people to go commit violent acts against people they disagree with. We don't know yet why the nut shot up the church, but I do believe that there is a lot of hateful stuff in those books and a lot of dehumanizing of liberals. That kind of thing doesn't help anyone understand someone else's point of view. It paints them as a target for pent up anger.


John

I don't know anything about her books, but in general, there is a line of free speech that cannot be crossed. "You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre" etc. Now whether or not she crossed it is not for me to say as I have never read her books; however, if it is genuinely promoting violence, I would say there is a pretty good case to take to court...

Just my $.02
January 24, 2009 04:23PM
Quote
Andy 90 325i
Quote
John Yust


As far as free speech goes. I'm 100% for it. I just don't think that "free speech" was ever meant to include speech that encourages people to go commit violent acts against people they disagree with. We don't know yet why the nut shot up the church, but I do believe that there is a lot of hateful stuff in those books and a lot of dehumanizing of liberals. That kind of thing doesn't help anyone understand someone else's point of view. It paints them as a target for pent up anger.


John

I don't know anything about her books, but in general, there is a line of free speech that cannot be crossed. "You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre" etc. Now whether or not she crossed it is not for me to say as I have never read her books; however, if it is genuinely promoting violence, I would say there is a pretty good case to take to court...

Just my $.02

I disagree. You can't yell fire in a theater because it could create an immediate public panic. Writing something in a book, no matter how inflammatory, is a different story altogether. I could read all the racist, sexist, "whatever"-ist books I wanted, and I am pretty sure I'm not likely to go out and shoot up a church. And if I did, it would be my fault, not the author's. If it's a case of a child reading or listening to material inappropriate for their age, that responsibility falls on the parents, and I don't think an underage person should be able to purchase certain things, but I don't think it's up to the government to decide what books should be published or what music should be recorded. They can enforce standards for what is played over public radio frequencies or what is played on TV, but that doesn't mean the author shouldn't be allowed to record/write the material.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
January 24, 2009 04:29PM
Quote
John Yust
I hope that doesn't mean you're mad as hell, but somehow managed to hold it together while typing. smiling smiley

No worries, I don't tend to get mad. Just don't go insulting my family, and I'm cool. smileys with beer

Quote

I totally agree that we can't just throw the doors open and I don't think that's the plan. On the other hand we've had 7 years to figure out who's inocent and who isn't. We could have done that by now if we had even half tried and with our principles intact too.

Don't you think that maybe we have determined that, and the people still in custody are there for a reason? There have been quite a few detainees released over the last few years.

Quote

As far as free speech goes. I'm 100% for it. I just don't think that "free speech" was ever meant to include speech that encourages people to go commit violent acts against people they disagree with. We don't know yet why the nut shot up the church, but I do believe that there is a lot of hateful stuff in those books and a lot of dehumanizing of liberals. That kind of thing doesn't help anyone understand someone else's point of view. It paints them as a target for pent up anger.

I think free speech covers books, music, whatever, as I said in my response to Andy. I should be allowed to write just about whatever I want (there are laws about what you can say about plots to overthrow the gov't, assassinate people, etc), and if I find a publisher willing to print my book, good for me. They shouldn't sell it to minors if it's deemed inappropriate, but I don't think the gov't should be allowed to tell me what I can or can't write. If a nutjob shoots up someone after reading it, that has to do with that person, even if they were "inspired" by me. That's like saying all the neo-Nazi idiots in the world aren't at fault because they were inspired by stuff they read.

Quote

I've been enjoying this discussion and I hope you have too.

John

Always! Might be more fun over beers in person, but until then... smiling bouncing smiley

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
January 24, 2009 04:34PM
Quote
Cab Treadway
Quote
Andy 90 325i
Quote
John Yust


As far as free speech goes. I'm 100% for it. I just don't think that "free speech" was ever meant to include speech that encourages people to go commit violent acts against people they disagree with. We don't know yet why the nut shot up the church, but I do believe that there is a lot of hateful stuff in those books and a lot of dehumanizing of liberals. That kind of thing doesn't help anyone understand someone else's point of view. It paints them as a target for pent up anger.


John

I don't know anything about her books, but in general, there is a line of free speech that cannot be crossed. "You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre" etc. Now whether or not she crossed it is not for me to say as I have never read her books; however, if it is genuinely promoting violence, I would say there is a pretty good case to take to court...

Just my $.02

I disagree. You can't yell fire in a theater because it could create an immediate public panic. Writing something in a book, no matter how inflammatory, is a different story altogether. I could read all the racist, sexist, "whatever"-ist books I wanted, and I am pretty sure I'm not likely to go out and shoot up a church. And if I did, it would be my fault, not the author's. If it's a case of a child reading or listening to material inappropriate for their age, that responsibility falls on the parents, and I don't think an underage person should be able to purchase certain things, but I don't think it's up to the government to decide what books should be published or what music should be recorded. They can enforce standards for what is played over public radio frequencies or what is played on TV, but that doesn't mean the author shouldn't be allowed to record/write the material.

I pretty much agree with you about all of that.
However, I would draw the line at 'hate' literature which does make a call to violence. Not the kind that says we'd be better off without so and so but the kind that says, take up your arms and kill the so and so. A call to action is much different than simply expressing an opinion or a dislike of someone or some thing.

Books don't cause people to go out and commit crimes or murders; mental illness does that. Books are not the problem.
January 24, 2009 04:44PM
Quote
Cab Treadway
...

Don't you think that maybe we have determined that, and the people still in custody are there for a reason? There have been quite a few detainees released over the last few years.

The issue isn't about letting them go, it's about basic rights that we all have. The prisoners at that site have been held illegally without the right to trial. No matter what you think of them or what they have done, we are at war and they are the opposition. If captured, they have the right to a proper and legal trial. It doesn't matter if they don't adhere to the Geneva Convention or any other treaties, we do and should be above breaking them or else it makes us no morally better than they are sad smiley These are not the visions of democracy we want them to see but these are the ones they will remember the most/

I don't believe for a second that the intention is to open the doors and let them free. As you say, by now we should know enough about every one of them to proceed with a speedy trial and sentencing. If executions are in order, so be it, if long jail terms are in order, so be it and if some are wrongly imprisoned there, let them go.
rkj
January 24, 2009 05:07PM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
Quote
Cab Treadway
...

Don't you think that maybe we have determined that, and the people still in custody are there for a reason? There have been quite a few detainees released over the last few years.

The issue isn't about letting them go, it's about basic rights that we all have. The prisoners at that site have been held illegally without the right to trial. No matter what you think of them or what they have done, we are at war and they are the opposition. If captured, they have the right to a proper and legal trial. It doesn't matter if they don't adhere to the Geneva Convention or any other treaties, we do and should be above breaking them or else it makes us no morally better than they are sad smiley These are not the visions of democracy we want them to see but these are the ones they will remember the most/

I don't believe for a second that the intention is to open the doors and let them free. As you say, by now we should know enough about every one of them to proceed with a speedy trial and sentencing. If executions are in order, so be it, if long jail terms are in order, so be it and if some are wrongly imprisoned there, let them go.

Exactly, that place was a mistake in the first place, it was a bush/Cheney thing (I wonder if we'll ever live that down!), another thing is, if you torture people think about the US troops who get captured, how are they going to be treated; what goes around comes around folks.

There have been folks (innocent ones) snatched from homes and airports and thrown in gito with no rights at all, is this something we want to be known for, really?

One thing we COULD all agree on is that this place is an abomination and should be dealt with immediately!
January 24, 2009 09:09PM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
I pretty much agree with you about all of that.
However, I would draw the line at 'hate' literature which does make a call to violence. Not the kind that says we'd be better off without so and so but the kind that says, take up your arms and kill the so and so. A call to action is much different than simply expressing an opinion or a dislike of someone or some thing.

Books don't cause people to go out and commit crimes or murders; mental illness does that. Books are not the problem.

I don't know. Censorship of the written word is a very fine line to tread. If we agree that something is vile enough to be censored, then there's a precedent for the next thing that someone says needs to be repressed. And who gets to make the call of what crosses the line? I'd guess the decider would be based on which party is in control, so you can count on their side's views getting out and the other side's views being controlled. It's a slippery slope, one that would be hard to get off of once the ride begins.

Besides, it's not just published works that would need censorship, you would have to crack down on the internet as well. That's a pretty big job, not sure it's at all possible.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
January 24, 2009 09:21PM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
Quote
Cab Treadway
...

Don't you think that maybe we have determined that, and the people still in custody are there for a reason? There have been quite a few detainees released over the last few years.

The issue isn't about letting them go, it's about basic rights that we all have. The prisoners at that site have been held illegally without the right to trial. No matter what you think of them or what they have done, we are at war and they are the opposition. If captured, they have the right to a proper and legal trial.

How do you try them? They're not US citizens, therefore not subject to US laws. They were not captured as representatives of any specific other country, therefore they can't simply be turned over to the government they were fighting for.

When my grandfather was shot down in WWII, he was held in a POW camp until the war was over. He never talked about what went on there, but to my knowledge, he wasn't given any kind of trial and sentenced (he certainly wasn't executed at least). He was held, possibly interrogated, I don't know, and then released when the war was over. If the war we are in is not yet over, and they don't have a specific country/government to be returned to anyway, then what?

Quote

I don't believe for a second that the intention is to open the doors and let them free. As you say, by now we should know enough about every one of them to proceed with a speedy trial and sentencing. If executions are in order, so be it, if long jail terms are in order, so be it and if some are wrongly imprisoned there, let them go.

The problem I have is that there has not been any mention of what the intention is. I would much rather the pres suspend all action at these places until they can figure out what they do and not just say we're closing them but don't know what we're doing yet. At least the questionable/illegal/immoral activities in which we have been engaging would stop and then we could move on with figuring out what to do before making any final decisions. I know he has access to a lot more information than I do, and I just hope he's making the right decision as far as our security goes.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
January 24, 2009 10:08PM
Quote
Cab Treadway
...

How do you try them? They're not US citizens, therefore not subject to US laws. They were not captured as representatives of any specific other country, therefore they can't simply be turned over to the government they were fighting for...

The Geneva Convention provides for exactly this situation. The process is called War Crimes Trials. It doesn't matter what country, citizenship or location they are in. If captured and found guilty of crimes, punishments are assigned. Often, the guilty are sent back to what ever country they are citizens of or in the absence of citizenship, to their birth country. If that country is not trusted to carry out the sentencing, then they can and have been held in the country trying them; in this case the US.

After WWII War Crimes trials were held in places like Singapore, Bangkok and Hong Kong. Japanese and Korean prisoners found guilty served their sentences in those countries; if they weren't summarily executed.

Quote

The problem I have is that there has not been any mention of what the intention is. I would much rather the pres suspend all action at these places until they can figure out what they do and not just say we're closing them but don't know what we're doing yet. At least the questionable/illegal/immoral activities in which we have been engaging would stop and then we could move on with figuring out what to do before making any final decisions. I know he has access to a lot more information than I do, and I just hope he's making the right decision as far as our security goes.

I'm sure there is an intelligent plan in place since the President isn't just opening the doors and letting them go. He is calling for a 16 month period in which to bring prisoners to trial and justice or in the cases with lack of evidence free them(probably aren't many of those left there anyway).

I guess the troops will now have to be called home anyway to prepare for the invasion of northern Canada. Now that the ice is melting, the oil companies are pushing hard for access to our land. Most of the troops will be required to hold the land for the US oil companies against all the other interested parties.

If President Obama is sincere about weaning the US off oil then the troops will just be there as a friendly neighbour to help protect our northern borders from opportunists grinning smiley We don't have enough troops to do the job ourselves since they are all in Afghanistan doing Bush's dirty work.
rkj
January 25, 2009 10:55AM
Maybe there would be a need to put a different method in place and have a new place to hold suspected terrorist's. I'd hate to tell you what happened in Nam to the poor troops that were caught but what ever is being done by the enemy You, still have to be a right doing country and make dam sure you're doing/acting humane. Not a place designed by thugs!

That will just come around and bit you in the ass everytime... War is a rotten business but it does not give you right to act like thugs back home!
January 25, 2009 08:30PM
Quote
Archeo-peteriX
Quote
Cab Treadway
Quote
Andy 90 325i
Quote
John Yust


As far as free speech goes. I'm 100% for it. I just don't think that "free speech" was ever meant to include speech that encourages people to go commit violent acts against people they disagree with. We don't know yet why the nut shot up the church, but I do believe that there is a lot of hateful stuff in those books and a lot of dehumanizing of liberals. That kind of thing doesn't help anyone understand someone else's point of view. It paints them as a target for pent up anger.


John

I don't know anything about her books, but in general, there is a line of free speech that cannot be crossed. "You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre" etc. Now whether or not she crossed it is not for me to say as I have never read her books; however, if it is genuinely promoting violence, I would say there is a pretty good case to take to court...

Just my $.02

I disagree. You can't yell fire in a theater because it could create an immediate public panic. Writing something in a book, no matter how inflammatory, is a different story altogether. I could read all the racist, sexist, "whatever"-ist books I wanted, and I am pretty sure I'm not likely to go out and shoot up a church. And if I did, it would be my fault, not the author's. If it's a case of a child reading or listening to material inappropriate for their age, that responsibility falls on the parents, and I don't think an underage person should be able to purchase certain things, but I don't think it's up to the government to decide what books should be published or what music should be recorded. They can enforce standards for what is played over public radio frequencies or what is played on TV, but that doesn't mean the author shouldn't be allowed to record/write the material.

I pretty much agree with you about all of that.
However, I would draw the line at 'hate' literature which does make a call to violence. Not the kind that says we'd be better off without so and so but the kind that says, take up your arms and kill the so and so. A call to action is much different than simply expressing an opinion or a dislike of someone or some thing.

Books don't cause people to go out and commit crimes or murders; mental illness does that. Books are not the problem.

I agree with you on this. I was speaking of literature that incites violence. Certainly anyone and everyone should be free to speak, record, write about their dislikes or even hatred of something or someone, but I don't think we should have "calls to violence" distributed. I also agree that the author should not be held accountable and that it the individual who commits the crime should be held accountable for his/her actions. If these people are mentally unstable so be it, but they haven't done this in the past, they lived a normal (relatively) life until they read this call to violence. Now, whether you believe that these people really experienced this calling or that they just used it as a defense is another story, but it just seems like good common sense to not distribute media that strives to incite violence.
January 26, 2009 06:42AM
Quote
Andy 90 325i
...it just seems like good common sense to not distribute media that strives to incite violence.

My problem is that there are lots of things that seem like good common sense, until you start taking them to the next logical step. First it's media that incites violence (and yet we as a society have no problem with extraordinarily violent video games, as if that makes sense), then someone decides that anything that has any violence in it is bad and we get any cop TV shows banned, then someone doesn't like anything with any sexuality in it because it incites violence against women, so we get romantic movies banned...

As a parent, you have every right to raise your kids the way you see fit, and teach them what is right and wrong. But government is not supposed to be society's parent and decide what should or shouldn't be available. You can't suppress people's opinions because there's a potential for an unstable person to commit a violent act against society if they come into contact with it.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 8
Record Number of Users: 3 on September 29, 2015
Record Number of Guests: 109 on June 08, 2017