Yes We Can
Posted by rkj
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! 
|
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 
Tanks Archie 
|
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 
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 
You can sleep well tonight; you folks have done a good deed
|
|
Sure wish I had some Samuel Adams Boston Lager right now o
|
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 |
|
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 
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. |
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).
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 |
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 |
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 |
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.
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.
Amen to that. I can't imagine wanting this job. Cab
1990 325i(s) 2004 325XiT |
I hope that doesn't mean you're mad as hell, but somehow managed to hold it together while typing.
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 |
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 |
No worries, I don't tend to get mad. Just don't go insulting my family, and I'm cool.
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.
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.
Always! Might be more fun over beers in person, but until then...  Cab
1990 325i(s) 2004 325XiT |
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 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! |
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 |
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?
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 |
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.
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 We don't have enough troops to do the job ourselves since they are all in Afghanistan doing Bush's dirty work.
|
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.