Democrats balk on closing Gitmo. Refuse to provide money to do so.

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Robor
Another foolish and dishonest thread by PJ? That's shocking.

He's the "Phokus" of the Right.

LOL. Ouch.

Used to be that being compared to dmcowen was the biggest insult here... pretty sad for Phokus that he's replaced dmcowen.

:laugh:

 

[NeoV]

It's May of Obama's first year - Why hasn't he done 100% of the things he said he would do?

How about because unlike prior administrations, this one seems to think ahead before acting?

So Obama hasn't closed Gitmo yet - it seems there are still some details to be worked out - ignore the facts much PJ?

No change? Ask the Big 3 car companies if there has been any change. How about science over religion? How about open access to information?

Outside of generosity to many African people, Bush has nothing to hang his hat on for the last 8 years, but after less than 5 months you've written off this administration?

Sounds about right for typical talking-points repeaters. It must be easy to exist when all of your opinions are pre-written for you.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: NeoV
It's May of Obama's first year - Why hasn't he done 100% of the things he said he would do?

How about because unlike prior administrations, this one seems to think ahead before acting?

So Obama hasn't closed Gitmo yet - it seems there are still some details to be worked out - ignore the facts much PJ?

No change? Ask the Big 3 car companies if there has been any change. How about science over religion? How about open access to information?

Outside of generosity to many African people, Bush has nothing to hang his hat on for the last 8 years, but after less than 5 months you've written off this administration?

Sounds about right for typical talking-points repeaters. It must be easy to exist when all of your opinions are pre-written for you.

So you are using examples of Obama taking over car companies as things he's accomplished? If thats the case then lets use Bush's waterboarding of terrorists an accomplishment as well. LOL. Why do I have a feeling in 4 years we will be hearing 'But, its only been 4 years! Bush had 8!'

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: NeoV
It's May of Obama's first year - Why hasn't he done 100% of the things he said he would do?

FAIL

You're going to lose everyone right there. This has zilch to do with time. Obama and his legion of congressional dems have addressed all of the things the OP outlined: torture pics, gitmo, tribunals, Iraq, Afghanistan, yadda yadda yadda. Plain and simple, there has been so much back peddling that it's downright absurd. The same idea that was wrong under the Bush admin is ok under the Obama admin.

It's not even a matter of whether or not conservatives and Republicans agree on one direction or another (this is for you, jpeyton, who grossly failed to comprehend the point): the fact is that the previous administration was condemned over these decisions and stances, and calls for rolling heads were made. But under the the administration of Change and Hope, the status quo is somehow much more palatable.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Rangoric
Wait, Obama is being blamed for people other than Obama not wanting to do something?

Really? Did I miss something?

yeah i don't get it either. i can't see how you can blame this on Obama.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: NeoV
It's May of Obama's first year - Why hasn't he done 100% of the things he said he would do?

How about because unlike prior administrations, this one seems to think ahead before acting?

So Obama hasn't closed Gitmo yet - it seems there are still some details to be worked out - ignore the facts much PJ?

No change? Ask the Big 3 car companies if there has been any change. How about science over religion? How about open access to information?

Outside of generosity to many African people, Bush has nothing to hang his hat on for the last 8 years, but after less than 5 months you've written off this administration?

Sounds about right for typical talking-points repeaters. It must be easy to exist when all of your opinions are pre-written for you.

So you are using examples of Obama taking over car companies as things he's accomplished? If thats the case then lets use Bush's waterboarding of terrorists an accomplishment as well. LOL. Why do I have a feeling in 4 years we will be hearing 'But, its only been 4 years! Bush had 8!'

Because it'll take more than 4 years to unfuck the things from the previous 8 years.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: NeoV
It's May of Obama's first year - Why hasn't he done 100% of the things he said he would do?

How about because unlike prior administrations, this one seems to think ahead before acting?

So Obama hasn't closed Gitmo yet - it seems there are still some details to be worked out - ignore the facts much PJ?

No change? Ask the Big 3 car companies if there has been any change. How about science over religion? How about open access to information?

Outside of generosity to many African people, Bush has nothing to hang his hat on for the last 8 years, but after less than 5 months you've written off this administration?

Sounds about right for typical talking-points repeaters. It must be easy to exist when all of your opinions are pre-written for you.

So you are using examples of Obama taking over car companies as things he's accomplished? If thats the case then lets use Bush's waterboarding of terrorists an accomplishment as well. LOL. Why do I have a feeling in 4 years we will be hearing 'But, its only been 4 years! Bush had 8!'

Because it'll take more than 4 years to unfuck the things from the previous 8 years.

... and the first steps to the unfucking are... back peddling?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: NeoV
It's May of Obama's first year - Why hasn't he done 100% of the things he said he would do?

How about because unlike prior administrations, this one seems to think ahead before acting?

So Obama hasn't closed Gitmo yet - it seems there are still some details to be worked out - ignore the facts much PJ?

No change? Ask the Big 3 car companies if there has been any change. How about science over religion? How about open access to information?

Outside of generosity to many African people, Bush has nothing to hang his hat on for the last 8 years, but after less than 5 months you've written off this administration?

Sounds about right for typical talking-points repeaters. It must be easy to exist when all of your opinions are pre-written for you.

So you are using examples of Obama taking over car companies as things he's accomplished? If thats the case then lets use Bush's waterboarding of terrorists an accomplishment as well. LOL. Why do I have a feeling in 4 years we will be hearing 'But, its only been 4 years! Bush had 8!'

good luck with that theory, and good luck in the 2012 elections, you're gonna need it my friend. You ideology is a way of the past.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I didn't realize Prof was so adamant about Gitmo being closed.

In fact I thought he wanted it to stay open.

Him and OC Guy are quite confused. They can't figure out what to be outraged about these days. I suggest they both go get "So much for change! LOL!" tattooed on their foreheads. Perhaps that will lend some clarity.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
You ideology is a way of the past.

Explain Fear No Evil's ideology, retrospooty. Do you honestly know what it is and understand it, or are you just spouting propaganda?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Robor
Another foolish and dishonest thread by PJ? That's shocking.

He's the "Phokus" of the Right.

LOL. Ouch.

Yeah dude. That's just harsh.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I didn't realize Prof was so adamant about Gitmo being closed.

In fact I thought he wanted it to stay open.

Him and OC Guy are quite confused. They can't figure out what to be outraged about these days. I suggest they both go get "So much for change! LOL!" tattooed on their foreheads. Perhaps that will lend some clarity.

You two are idiots. His point was the inconsistency and back peddling, not the issue itself.

FFS people, keep up :roll:

 

[her209]

Republicans have used this confusion to play on the localized fears and emotions of voters about prisoners being transferred to prisons in their states.

Bam! There it is.

What's so "badass" about theses guys that our prisons cannot handle them (as opposed to murderers, serial killers, rapists, etc.)?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Rangoric
Wait, Obama is being blamed for people other than Obama not wanting to do something?

Really? Did I miss something?

yeah i don't get it either. i can't see how you can blame this on Obama.

one of two things...

1 -- Obama instructed congressional leaders that Gitmo needed to stay open and/or didn't press upon them his desire to have it closed

2 -- Obama can't even keep his own party in line

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: her209

Republicans have used this confusion to play on the localized fears and emotions of voters about prisoners being transferred to prisons in their states.

Bam! There it is.

What's so "badass" about theses guys that our prisons cannot handle them (as opposed to murderers, serial killers, rapists, etc.)?

Beats me... you'll need to ask your democratic congress, they seem to know.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: her209

Republicans have used this confusion to play on the localized fears and emotions of voters about prisoners being transferred to prisons in their states.

Bam! There it is.

What's so "badass" about theses guys that our prisons cannot handle them (as opposed to murderers, serial killers, rapists, etc.)?

Beats me... you'll need to ask your democratic congress, they seem to know.

The people I saw protesting it on the news were not (D)'s.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Seems that the Democrats are becoming more and more like Bush every day when it comes to the war on terror.

Can anyone name a major difference between Bush's policies at the END of his term compared to what Obama and the Democrats are now doing?

We're not going to close Gitmo, not going to release the picture, not going to end the tribunals, not going to leave Iraq, not going to leave Afghanistan. Am I missing some stuff?

Democrats concede on Guantanamo Bay

In a clear setback for President Barack Obama, Senate Democrats moved Tuesday to both wipe out $80 million in new funding for the closing the Guantanamo detention facility and bar the administration from moving prisoners to U.S. soil until there is a more detailed plan provided to lawmakers.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) confirmed the decision, which follows intense pressure from Republicans going into debate over a $91.3 billion wartime spending bill expected to come to the floor late Tuesday.

?We?ll wipe out all the money,? Inouye said, ?And I?ll put in a provision that says none of the funds in this bill or any other bill can be used to pay for the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the United States.?

Inouye held out the option that Obama could still seek funding as part of the regular Defense and Justice Department appropriations bills for the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. But at this stage, securing the money now?without an approved plan?was a ?non-starter,? he said.

Following House debate last week on the same bill, Obama is left with no money and less flexibility than when he first made his funding request this spring.

The wholesale retreat heightens the importance of a Thursday speech by Obama when he is expected to address the Guantanamo issue. At a time when new polls actually show the president riding high on national security issues, Guantanamo has proved especially nettlesome.

This was well illustrated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?s seemingly contradictory comments following a Democratic caucus luncheon Tuesday. Reid said that closing Guantanamo was the right decision but ?We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.? Asked next, if he could see a day when Guantanamo detainees might be transferred to prisons on American soil, Reid refused to clarify his remarks. ?We don?t want them around,? he said.

In recent days, Obama has sent mixed signals himself as he sorts through the complexities of how to bring to trial the remaining prisoners. Republicans have used this confusion to play on the localized fears and emotions of voters about prisoners being transferred to prisons in their states.

?Obama hasn?t done us any favors on this,? said one Democratic leadership aide. ?He?s a little of this, a little of that. The Republicans have one compelling message.?


Read more: "Democrats concede on Guantanamo Bay - David Rogers - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/s...7.html#ixzz0G1fqgeSd&A

[/quote]

So you are a 100% Obama supporter now?:brokenheart:

edit; Excuse me, I meant a 100% Barack Hussein Obama supporter!:brokenheart:x2

 

[Stuxnet]

?Obama hasn?t done us any favors on this,? said one Democratic leadership
aide. ?He?s a little of this, a little of that.?

Par for the course.

I hope that guy keeps his anonymity... the rank and file of his party won't take too kindly to outbursts like that.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Seems that the Democrats are becoming more and more like Bush every day when it comes to the war on terror.

Can anyone name a major difference between Bush's policies at the END of his term compared to what Obama and the Democrats are now doing?

We're not going to close Gitmo, not going to release the picture, not going to end the tribunals, not going to leave Iraq, not going to leave Afghanistan. Am I missing some stuff?

Democrats concede on Guantanamo Bay

In a clear setback for President Barack Obama, Senate Democrats moved Tuesday to both wipe out $80 million in new funding for the closing the Guantanamo detention facility and bar the administration from moving prisoners to U.S. soil until there is a more detailed plan provided to lawmakers.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) confirmed the decision, which follows intense pressure from Republicans going into debate over a $91.3 billion wartime spending bill expected to come to the floor late Tuesday.

?We?ll wipe out all the money,? Inouye said, ?And I?ll put in a provision that says none of the funds in this bill or any other bill can be used to pay for the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the United States.?

Inouye held out the option that Obama could still seek funding as part of the regular Defense and Justice Department appropriations bills for the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. But at this stage, securing the money now?without an approved plan?was a ?non-starter,? he said.

Following House debate last week on the same bill, Obama is left with no money and less flexibility than when he first made his funding request this spring.

The wholesale retreat heightens the importance of a Thursday speech by Obama when he is expected to address the Guantanamo issue. At a time when new polls actually show the president riding high on national security issues, Guantanamo has proved especially nettlesome.

This was well illustrated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?s seemingly contradictory comments following a Democratic caucus luncheon Tuesday. Reid said that closing Guantanamo was the right decision but ?We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.? Asked next, if he could see a day when Guantanamo detainees might be transferred to prisons on American soil, Reid refused to clarify his remarks. ?We don?t want them around,? he said.

In recent days, Obama has sent mixed signals himself as he sorts through the complexities of how to bring to trial the remaining prisoners. Republicans have used this confusion to play on the localized fears and emotions of voters about prisoners being transferred to prisons in their states.

?Obama hasn?t done us any favors on this,? said one Democratic leadership aide. ?He?s a little of this, a little of that. The Republicans have one compelling message.?


Read more: "Democrats concede on Guantanamo Bay - David Rogers - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/s...7.html#ixzz0G1fqgeSd&A

So you are a 100% Obama supporter now?:brokenheart:[/quote]

I think you need more BOLD in your post...

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Seems that the Democrats are becoming more and more like Bush every day when it comes to the war on terror.

Can anyone name a major difference between Bush's policies at the END of his term compared to what Obama and the Democrats are now doing?

We're not going to close Gitmo, not going to release the picture, not going to end the tribunals, not going to leave Iraq, not going to leave Afghanistan. Am I missing some stuff?

Democrats concede on Guantanamo Bay

In a clear setback for President Barack Obama, Senate Democrats moved Tuesday to both wipe out $80 million in new funding for the closing the Guantanamo detention facility and bar the administration from moving prisoners to U.S. soil until there is a more detailed plan provided to lawmakers.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) confirmed the decision, which follows intense pressure from Republicans going into debate over a $91.3 billion wartime spending bill expected to come to the floor late Tuesday.

?We?ll wipe out all the money,? Inouye said, ?And I?ll put in a provision that says none of the funds in this bill or any other bill can be used to pay for the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the United States.?

Inouye held out the option that Obama could still seek funding as part of the regular Defense and Justice Department appropriations bills for the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. But at this stage, securing the money now?without an approved plan?was a ?non-starter,? he said.

Following House debate last week on the same bill, Obama is left with no money and less flexibility than when he first made his funding request this spring.

The wholesale retreat heightens the importance of a Thursday speech by Obama when he is expected to address the Guantanamo issue. At a time when new polls actually show the president riding high on national security issues, Guantanamo has proved especially nettlesome.

This was well illustrated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?s seemingly contradictory comments following a Democratic caucus luncheon Tuesday. Reid said that closing Guantanamo was the right decision but ?We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.? Asked next, if he could see a day when Guantanamo detainees might be transferred to prisons on American soil, Reid refused to clarify his remarks. ?We don?t want them around,? he said.

In recent days, Obama has sent mixed signals himself as he sorts through the complexities of how to bring to trial the remaining prisoners. Republicans have used this confusion to play on the localized fears and emotions of voters about prisoners being transferred to prisons in their states.

?Obama hasn?t done us any favors on this,? said one Democratic leadership aide. ?He?s a little of this, a little of that. The Republicans have one compelling message.?


Read more: "Democrats concede on Guantanamo Bay - David Rogers - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/s...7.html#ixzz0G1fqgeSd&A

So you are a 100% Obama supporter now?:brokenheart:

I think you need more BOLD in your post...
[/quote]

Level playing field.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Rangoric
Wait, Obama is being blamed for people other than Obama not wanting to do something?

Really? Did I miss something?

yeah i don't get it either. i can't see how you can blame this on Obama.

What was that phrase that the left used so often over the past 8 years? Oh yes, I believe it was "the buck stops here".

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: her209

Republicans have used this confusion to play on the localized fears and emotions of voters about prisoners being transferred to prisons in their states.

Bam! There it is.

What's so "badass" about theses guys that our prisons cannot handle them (as opposed to murderers, serial killers, rapists, etc.)?

Beats me... you'll need to ask your democratic congress, they seem to know.

The people I saw protesting it on the news were not (D)'s.

The people in congress are.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: her209

Republicans have used this confusion to play on the localized fears and emotions of voters about prisoners being transferred to prisons in their states.

Bam! There it is.

What's so "badass" about theses guys that our prisons cannot handle them (as opposed to murderers, serial killers, rapists, etc.)?

Beats me... you'll need to ask your democratic congress, they seem to know.

And your reason(s) for opposing the transfer of Gitmo detainees to US prisons is...

 

[WHAMPOM]

hhhkkkk


Then of course my BOLD could be just another Anand glitch.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: her209

Republicans have used this confusion to play on the localized fears and emotions of voters about prisoners being transferred to prisons in their states.

Bam! There it is.

What's so "badass" about theses guys that our prisons cannot handle them (as opposed to murderers, serial killers, rapists, etc.)?

Beats me... you'll need to ask your democratic congress, they seem to know.

And your reason(s) for opposing the transfer of Gitmo detainees to US prisons is...

I think it's a NIMBY thing.