Obama press conference

[MG1968]

Originally Posted by UT IE 95

You really think they are going to take a convicted terrorist and release them onto Main St. USA? Those 250 people will get their day in court. If they are cleared, ship 'em out.

one criticism of the left and other opponents of Gitmo is that many of those held there haven't been convicted of anything. They're enemy combatants and the only thing the Geneva convention specifies about them is that if they aren't killed outright on the battlefield, then they can be incarcerated indefinitely.

and yes, I do believe the Obama administration would release them onto the streets of America.

[gsvol]

Originally Posted by MG1968

one criticism of the left and other opponents of Gitmo is that many of those held there haven't been convicted of anything. They're enemy combatants and the only thing the Geneva convention specifies about them is that if they aren't killed outright on the battlefield, then they can be incarcerated indefinitely.

and yes, I do believe the Obama administration would release them onto the streets of America.

"Enemy combatant" no more, now only "substancial supportists."

When Eric Holder says that when Gitmo is closed, some detainees will be released into American cities and the others will be housed in Liberal cities, the last thing I want to hear from the Liberals, who voted for Obama, is how they don't want terrorists in their neighborhood. You wanted change. Here is your frickin' change.

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

Originally Posted by gsvol

"Enemy combatant" no more, now only "substancial supportists."

When Eric Holder says that when Gitmo is closed, some detainees will be released into American cities and the others will be housed in Liberal cities, the last thing I want to hear from the Liberals, who voted for Obama, is how they don't want terrorists in their neighborhood. You wanted change. Here is your frickin' change.

agreed, this wouldnt be good, but how ironic would it be if one of the derkaderkas blew up the change.org HQ?

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by GASOUTHERNVOL

agreed, this wouldnt be good, but how ironic would it be if one of the derkaderkas blew up the change.org HQ?

are they insane? They are going to put them in our nations capital backyard?


Wow, Just wow

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

in the words of Brian Johnson-were on a highway to hell

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by GASOUTHERNVOL

in the words of Brian Johnson-were on a highway to hell

I believe that would be Bon Scott...

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

Originally Posted by volinbham

I believe that would be Bon Scott...

was highway to hell pre-brian johnson? Bon Scott died in like 80

[oklavol]

Originally Posted by KB5252

And Obama's proposed spending will boat race that figure, in one term compared to Bush's two terms. You seem like a intelligent and reasonable enough person to me. Why you still continue to carry water for Obama and refer back to Bush is beyond me, especially when most here would tell you Bush was terrible.

It sounds to me as if you are trying to set the argument that Obama was at least better than Bush even if Obama is a failure. Even if Obama does not turn out quite as bad as Bush (unlikely if he continues down the path he has started IMO) that isn't saying much. Kind of like saying Florida sucks only slightly less than Alabama!

I don't understand the free pass to Bush. Most of the problems we have now could have been avoided if this country had better leadership from the White House during the Bush Administration. It seems like everone wants to blame BO, when he's only trying to fix the mess he was handed.

I don't like the ridiculous spending by BO anymore then Bush. But I don't really expect BO to pull up out of Iraq tomorrow or stop funding Fannie, Freddie, AIG, or insolvent banks. That's the bulk of the deficit.

Everyone wants to complain about the money being spent to attempt to create jobs, but that is a small part of the budget deficit.

The bulk of the deficit spending is on the Iraq War, the Bailout of companies Fannie and Freddie and AIG, and the growing entitlement problem, which Bush made worse with his stupid drug plan.

These problems arent going to be fixed in 90 days like everyone here seems to demand. And all of those problems he inherited from Bush. Why blame the guy forced to fix them, instead of the guy under who's watch they developed?

[The Dude]

Fiscal conservatives only became fiscal conservatives after 2006. Before that we heard very, very few complaints about W's spending habits, doubling spending in alone in '06. Now its the new religion of the right.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by The Dude

Fiscal conservatives only became fiscal conservatives after 2006. Before that we heard very, very few complaints about W's spending habits, doubling spending in alone in '06. Now its the new religion of the right.

Good call Dude. Also, left wingers were wringing their hands over the money Bush was spending for 8 years. Now it is all good. Right?

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by allvol123

Good call Dude. Also, left wingers were wringing their hands over the money Bush was spending for 8 years. Now it is all good. Right?

Nope, cause the left is just as inclined to spend themselves. Just saying that either there has been a change in the right's ideology or they ignored the spending when it was done by one of their own.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by The Dude

Nope, cause the left is more inclined to spend themselves. Just saying that either there has been a change in the right's ideology or they ignored the spending when it was done by one of their own.

Not so sure about how much you are retaining. First, right leaners on this board have attacked Bush's spending over and over and over. Second, some lefters on here repeatedly brought up the cost of the war anytime they were unable to make any other point about the war that helped their cause. Now, spending seems to be ok though.

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by allvol123

Not so sure about how much you are retaining. First, right leaners on this board have attacked Bush's spending over and over and over. Second, some lefters on here repeatedly brought up the cost of the war anytime they were unable to make any other point about the war that helped their cause. Now, spending seems to be ok though.

I've retained enough to know that the attacks from the right towards Bush's spending were far, far more muted than they are now.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by The Dude

I've retained enough to know that the attacks from the right towards Bush's spending were far, far more muted than they are now.

Maybe because for around 7 years the economy was a non-issue. So it was not an issue on the board. It is the number one issue now and Obama is making Bush look like a small timer in regards to spending.

Can you guys just get over W? It is O's now. No matter how many times he references the idea that he didn't create this, it is his. Stand up man, it is POTUS. No one said it was an easy job.

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by allvol123

Maybe because for around 7 years the economy was a non-issue. So it was not an issue on the board. It is the number one issue now and Obama is making Bush look like a small timer in regards to spending.

Can you guys just get over W? It is O's now. No matter how many times he references the idea that he didn't create this, it is his. Stand up man, it is POTUS. No one said it was an easy job.

Interesting, did not know that one's economic philosophy was contingent to certain factors like how the ecomomy is. That's news to me. So for so-called fiscal conservatives, exorbitant spending is okay if the economy isn't a front page headline, but if its in the tank it's not?

I'm just asking for a little consistancy on both sides, and that's something the right hasn't shown in this regard.