kubstix Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 damn that sounds horrible. you condone that? And you don't? So instead...we just 'wait and see' what happens right? If they are planning on smuggling a chemical bomb in the US and detonating it....we should wait and see right? These people at Gitmo are all terrorists. I wish they would condone more than just waterboarding to these pieces of scum. Glad I don't run that place....I would be snipping fingers off with a pair of pliars until answers are received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 damn that sounds horrible. you condone that? Like I said, if we change the rules around to find guilt in the person before they are shipped over there then I am all for it. **** them terrorists that want to kill our women and children just to get back at our country for no other reason but the fact that they dont like us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 And you don't? So instead...we just 'wait and see' what happens right? If they are planning on smuggling a chemical bomb in the US and detonating it....we should wait and see right? These people at Gitmo are all terrorists. I wish they would condone more than just waterboarding to these pieces of scum. Glad I don't run that place....I would be snipping fingers off with a pair of pliars until answers are received. There is a wide range of options between waterboarding and waiting for a terrorist attack before acting again. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Rich Fla Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 So he is going to close Gitmo and move all the prisoners to another facility. Either way no one sees the light of day and he keeps a campaign promise. Get the troops out of Iraq...and move them to Afghanistan. Another promise fulfilled. See a pattern? I say move them to a nice place like Buffalo NY. No windows and heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 There is a wide range of options between waterboarding and waiting for a terrorist attack before acting again. :2cents: This is how i feel also. The only way I would condone torture is if it happened under the circumstances that Burgold previously mentioned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Besides the ethical issues surrounding it I think the major problem with Gitmo is the symbolism of it to the rest of the world. To battle a thing like terrorism and their worldwide network of financing, recruiting, cells, etc, you need as many allies as you can get. To rebuild entire countries like Iraq and Afghanistan you need as much help as you can get. It's hard, if not impossible, to get allies and their help when their citizens absolutely despise what were doing. So to me the question is is it necessary? Is Gitmo necessary? I don't believe it is so the negatives outweigh the good by miles. I really don't understand how it helps us to run a highly-publicized prison on the Cuban island. Where we hold people without trial in violation of pretty much every worldwide law that exists. And then to announce that you waterboard people? Something we charged Japanese military officers with war crimes for? The stated justification for all of this, "well they're unlawful combatants." While we break the law. Come on now. While we're the **** that doesn't mean the rest of the world is stupid. To me the whole Gitmo thing is like a man with a bunch of insecurities who acts like a prick. A political Napolean complex. It feels great to be a beast and say **** the world sometimes. I think all of us felt like that after 9/11. I know I did. But the President and the govt aren't all of us. They need to set the tone and make wise decisions; decisions that aren't based in emotions and overreactions. While I still wouldn't necessarily like it, morally, if Obama shuttles everyone off to secret prisons and continues harsh interrogation techniques without anyone knowing I at least understand the need. I'm sure someone will find a way to tell me I'm wrong. For whoever does you'll need to answer the question I asked. Why is Gitmo necessary. This is an opinion I feel very strongly about so you better come with something good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE OUTSIDER Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Many have wondered what he meant by change? This is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 ^this is the beginning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE OUTSIDER Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 ^this is the beginning So true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Thank you Mr. Obama for releasing terrorists back into this country. Part of your stimulus package??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 In the big picture, that's what you care about the most here? Not the lobbying rules or Gitmo? Why not?...in my eyes it is government funded murder of the most innocent.(and effects not just the gag rule):2cents: Lobbying is still gonna go on, as is holding prisoners. That is nothing but rearranging the deck chairs to appease sensibilities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Thank you Mr. Obama for releasing terrorists back into this country. Part of your stimulus package??? I know people defended you in the "not my President" thread but posts like this and the one in the Oscars thread are why it's impossible to take you seriously. Yes 81, several terrorists will now be moving in next door to you thanks to President Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I know people defended you in the "not my President" thread but posts like this and the one in the Oscars thread are why it's impossible to take you seriously.Yes 81, several terrorists will now be moving in next door to you thanks to President Obama. Yeah, I didnt get that either. Obama didnt say he was giving citizenship to any of these guys, did he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Yeah, I didnt get that either. Obama didnt say he was giving citizenship to any of these guys, did he? Yes he did. He also said that they will be given land and a job. :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Yes he did. He also said that they will be given land and a job.:paranoid: if he gives them ****ers 40 acres and a mule I am going to freak out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 haha he is closing gitmo yes but the human rights groups are worried when he sends some of these guys back they are going to be tortured and executed, which is certainly the case with many of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I'm skeptical of the "New" new deal (seems like obama is doing another FDR)...It didn't work then, I don't think it will work now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Yeah, I didnt get that either. Obama didnt say he was giving citizenship to any of these guys, did he? I think he was talking about them being moved to US prisons. Which I for one, am not a fan of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 ^why not??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I think if we're hit in the next year: The person he put in the CIA and the day 2 removals of all blackops is going to come back and bite him. As was said: he's rearranging the deck chairs to make it look prettier on Gitmo and salaries and lobbying, but on the CIA he's make wholesale change. Put them in General Pop in Fort Leavenworth if you want to get rid of the problem. Minimum Security in Pennsylvania is still too close to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophet Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 look up some of the threads he started a few months back.he's a major bible thumper......no offense 1. Has nothing to do with this thread. 2. I'd like to see those threads "I started" myself.. please post them for me. I guess if I'm a bible thumper what are you a Christian Hater? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 I'm skeptical of the "New" new deal (seems like obama is doing another FDR)...It didn't work then, I don't think it will work now. FDR took unemployment from 25% to 1.2%. This is not a typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 FDR took unemployment from 25% to 1.2%. This is not a typo. id be curious to know the difference in population... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 FDR took unemployment from 25% to 1.2%. This is not a typo. What was unemployment in 1940? You throw out a very nice stat there. But its also completely skewed thanks to guys like Hitler Here is a quote from FDR's treasury secretary in 1939 No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Big deal. All new presidents do that when they are of the opposing party. Bush reversed Clinton's policies, Clinton reversed Papa Bush's policies amd Obama's successor if of another party will reverse Obama's policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.