• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

Boo Radley said:
Due process


Torture

The war itself breaking agreements we signed.
Click to expand...

Enemy terrorists require due process? When did the Supreme Court decide this?

Which agreements with which countries are you referring to?
 
Grant said:
Enemy terrorists require due process? When did the Supreme Court decide this?

Which agreements with which countries are you referring to?
Click to expand...


Great, this is where Joe gets to derail the entire thread launching off on an argument he has been losing soundly since his days as JD3.

j-mac
 
Grant said:
Enemy terrorists require due process? When did the Supreme Court decide this?

Which agreements with which countries are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Hasn't gone before the court to my knowledge, but due process is out law, isn't it? Anyone we hold is subject to our laws. Not because of who they are but because of who we are. If you call them soliders, follow the GC. If you say they are not, then they are subject to our laws as criminals.

The agreement we signed with the UN. We broke our agreement.
 
j-mac said:
Great, this is where Joe gets to derail the entire thread launching off on an argument he has been losing soundly since his days as JD3.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Didn't know we had any score boards, but being right isn't losing, j ;)
 
megaprogman said:
partisans want partisan things. news at 11
Click to expand...

Admit it, you're frustrated and so are many others. I've been saying this all along. Many libs will be holding their noses at the ballot box this year. I'll bet some won't even show, and with Romney running, he doesn't look as rightwing as the candidates he beat. I'll bet there are even some on the left who think he's even a little bit liberal like they are (Romneycare.....Obamacare). Regardless, Obama's new spy network will be homing in on the voters.

:lol:
 
I don;t think there are many liberals who would say Obama didn't disappoint. But there are very few, if any, who see Romney as a better option.
 
Why should we close Gitmo?

And some want to move those prisoners to mainland USA?

I can't believe real Americans would stand for having POWs on US soil.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Why should we close Gitmo?

And some want to move those prisoners to mainland USA?

I can't believe real Americans would stand for having POWs on US soil.
Click to expand...

They stand for illegals on US soil don't they?
 
johnny_rebson said:
Why should we close Gitmo?

And some want to move those prisoners to mainland USA?

I can't believe real Americans would stand for having POWs on US soil.
Click to expand...

Well, according to Bush they weren't POWs. If they are POWs, they are to be released after we leave those countries. That's how it works. As I noted earlier we ahve tried, convicted and housed terrorist here in the states before. it is neither new nor unusual.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've linked what happened. Why are you pretending this hasn't been answered. He signed the order, republicans started fear mongering and congress caved. That is what happened, you have been answered.

And, not, the war never has smelled good. But Obama could never change what Bush did. Bush's action are not erased once someone else takes over, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

And yes, he broke laws. He used torture. That allow was enough to hinder him in a court of law. He had no faith in American ideals, and his actions harmed everyone.
Click to expand...



Sorry I didn't read or see your link. Thus I have to go on what I read in the papers and my OP.

I don't remember anything other than AG Holder wanted to try these GITMO terrorists in NYC. Now just how dumb is that, I ask. Only a novice or law professor would come up with something that ignorant, IMO. Shows the "no chops" I was speaking about previously.

No Bush's Iraqi War doesn't belong to Obama, but Obama bought the Afgan War, he said it was a "good" war. I'll bet when all is said and done, this "good" war is gonna bite President Obama in the butt. He owns it now.

I see you just have your opinion on Bush and his "broke laws", and as I've said before we all have an opinion but I favor my own the most.
 
Boo Radley said:
Hasn't gone before the court to my knowledge, but due process is out law, isn't it? Anyone we hold is subject to our laws. Not because of who they are but because of who we are. If you call them soliders, follow the GC. If you say they are not, then they are subject to our laws as criminals.

The agreement we signed with the UN. We broke our agreement.
Click to expand...

It's always fascinating to hear leftists claim that enemy terrorists require due process in American courts, and always without any legal precedence whatsoever.

And as to the UN , aren't you the guy who just said "Who needs foreign countries"?

Your ideals are quite flexible it seems.
 
Billy the Kid said:
Sorry I didn't read or see your link. Thus I have to go on what I read in the papers and my OP.

I don't remember anything other than AG Holder wanted to try these GITMO terrorists in NYC. Now just how dumb is that, I ask. Only a novice or law professor would come up with something that ignorant, IMO. Shows the "no chops" I was speaking about previously.

No Bush's Iraqi War doesn't belong to Obama, but Obama bought the Afgan War, he said it was a "good" war. I'll bet when all is said and done, this "good" war is gonna bite President Obama in the butt. He owns it now.

I see you just have your opinion on Bush and his "broke laws", and as I've said before we all have an opinion but I favor my own the most.
Click to expand...

We've done it before,a nd quite successfully, so why would it be dunb?

And yes, many of us agreed with Obama that he had to correct the Bush error and return to the focus on Afghanistan. And a I disagre with a few things he did there, it may well bite him. But it is not equal to what Bush did in Iraq.

As for me just having opinion, do you argue we have no such laws? That we did not sign agreements with the UN?
 
j-mac said:
Great, this is where Joe gets to derail the entire thread launching off on an argument he has been losing soundly since his days as JD3.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right but sometimes I can't resist watching them tie themselves in knots.
 
Grant said:
It's always fascinating to hear leftists claim that enemy terrorists require due process in American courts, and always without any legal precedence whatsoever.

And as to the UN , aren't you the guy who just said "Who needs foreign countries"?

Your ideals are quite flexible it seems.
Click to expand...

Haven't re prosecurted terrorist before? Wouldn't that be precedence?

I don't know what you mean about needing foreign countries. I've made no such claim.
 
Boo Radley said:
Haven't re prosecurted terrorist before? Wouldn't that be precedence?

I don't know what you mean about needing foreign countries. I've made no such claim.
Click to expand...

Who are ou referring to here?

In post 112 you said "We didn't need other countries" and then later suggested subordinating US sovereignty to UN authority..
 
Boo Radley said:
We've done it before,a nd quite successfully, so why would it be dunb?

And yes, many of us agreed with Obama that he had to correct the Bush error and return to the focus on Afghanistan. And a I disagre with a few things he did there, it may well bite him. But it is not equal to what Bush did in Iraq.

As for me just having opinion, do you argue we have no such laws? That we did not sign agreements with the UN?
Click to expand...



I'm one of those "people" that believes firming in "Get the US our of the UN and get the UN out of the US". Some of the UNs deicisions are so stupid that a 2 year old would laugh. The UN appoints Iran to head up the Human Rights Committee. That is absolutely stupid. So I'm sure you can see how I wouldn't give two hoots for anything that comes out of the UN, yes?



Yes I realize we are doing "it" right now and that jackass terrorist is making a mockery of our courts and giving a wonderful performance for every other nimrod terrorist in the world. That sure makes me happy snappy.

So how's that "return to the focus on Afganistan" working. We've already told them we're leaving in 2014. So all they have to do is kill some NATO/American troops everyday or so until we leave. I'm sure those being sacrificed on the battlefield by President Obama are real glad he has refocused on the Afgan War for the next 2 years. Hopefully they can dodge the kill shot for that long.

Again President Obama hasn't the skills nor the "time in the zone" to be POTUS. I think history will prove me right.
 
Last edited:
Billy the Kid said:
I'm one of those "people" that believes firming in "Get the US our of the UN and get the UN out of the US". Some of the UNs deicisions are so stupid that a 2 year old would laugh. The UN appoints Iran to head up the Human Rights Committee. That is absolutely stupid. So I'm sure you can see how I wouldn't give two hoots for anything that comes out of the UN, yes?



Yes I realize we are doing "it" right now and that jackass terrorist is making a mockery of our courts and giving a wonderful performance for every other nimrod terrorist in the world. That sure makes me happy snappy.

So how's that "return to the focus on Afganistan" working. We've already told them we're leaving in 2014. So all they have to do is kill some NATO/American troops everyday or so until we leave. I'm sure those being sacrificed on the battlefield by President Obama are real glad he has refocused on the Afgan War for the next 2 years. Hopefully they can dodge the kill shot for that long.

Again President Obama hasn't the skills nor the "time in the zone" to be POTUS. I think history will prove me right.
Click to expand...

I didn;t say right now, I said we've done it in the past, have tried, convicted, and housed for years with no problems at all. And frankly, he's made far fewer mistakes than Bush. Far fewer.
 
Grant said:
Who are ou referring to here?

In post 112 you said "We didn't need other countries" and then later suggested subordinating US sovereignty to UN authority..
Click to expand...

You're wrong on both issues.

Post 112 said we didn't need other countries to take prisoners. Reading things in context helps with understanding. And honoring our agreements is not equal to subordinating our sovereinty. That talking point is just mindless drivel that some spout to avoid addressing the issue or even thinking at all.

As I said, we've tried, convicted, and housed terrorist before:

But the apocalyptic rhetoric rarely addresses this: Thirty-three international terrorists, many with ties to al-Qaeda, reside in a single federal prison in Florence, Colo., with little public notice.

Detained in the supermax facility in Colorado are Ramzi Yousef, who headed the group that carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993; Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted of conspiring in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; Ahmed Ressam, of the Dec. 31, 1999, Los Angeles airport millennium attack plots; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, conspirator in several plots, including one to assassinate President George W. Bush; and Wadih el-Hage, convicted of the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya.

Supermax Prisons in U.S. Already Hold International Terrorists
 
Boo Radley said:
I didn;t say right now, I said we've done it in the past, have tried, convicted, and housed for years with no problems at all. And frankly, he's made far fewer mistakes than Bush. Far fewer.
Click to expand...


Your right we have "tried, convicted and housed" in the past. But IMO, the GITMO terrorist are a whole different problem. And IMO, Senator Obama should have known the "ins and outs" on this issue and not promised he'd have GITMO closed by the end of his 1st year in office. Rookie mistake? Or did he promise something he knew he couldn't pull off?

That is what I'm talking about. President Obama hasn't the skills set to be POTUS. He opens his mouth says something ignorant, "the private sector is doing fine", and then has to walk it back. Either he won't listen to his advisors or his advisors are dumb as rocks. Either way he is the best example of Peter's Principle I've seen in a long time.
 
Billy the Kid said:
I'm one of those "people" that believes firming in "Get the US our of the UN and get the UN out of the US". Some of the UNs deicisions are so stupid that a 2 year old would laugh. The UN appoints Iran to head up the Human Rights Committee. That is absolutely stupid. So I'm sure you can see how I wouldn't give two hoots for anything that comes out of the UN, yes?



Yes I realize we are doing "it" right now and that jackass terrorist is making a mockery of our courts and giving a wonderful performance for every other nimrod terrorist in the world. That sure makes me happy snappy.

So how's that "return to the focus on Afganistan" working. We've already told them we're leaving in 2014. So all they have to do is kill some NATO/American troops everyday or so until we leave. I'm sure those being sacrificed on the battlefield by President Obama are real glad he has refocused on the Afgan War for the next 2 years. Hopefully they can dodge the kill shot for that long.

Again President Obama hasn't the skills nor the "time in the zone" to be POTUS. I think history will prove me right.
Click to expand...

It's not often that an army announces when it will be retreating. I believe that's a recent trend.
 
Grant said:
It's not often that an army announces when it will be retreating. I believe that's a recent trend.
Click to expand...


It's the progressive way to fight a war. Like I've stated over and over President Obama hasn't the background, knowledge, ability, experience to be the leader of the US. He can talk a good game, who just hasn't had the experience in playing the game. He's a rookie and sold the voters a bill of goods.

Hopefully thinking people who are ready to face reality will see this and vote accordingly in November.
 
Billy the Kid said:
It's the progressive way to fight a war. Like I've stated over and over President Obama hasn't the background, knowledge, ability, experience to be the leader of the US. He can talk a good game, who just hasn't had the experience in playing the game. He's a rookie and sold the voters a bill of goods.

Hopefully thinking people who are ready to face reality will see this and vote accordingly in November.
Click to expand...

If the American forces went in and did what they were capable of doing there would be a far less chance of a terrorist attack happening ever again. Doing something just halfway is why there was WWII and why they didn't repeat the same mistake when that was done. The aggressive countries were soundly beaten and Germany, Japan and Italy have been docile ever since, often to a fault.

Churchill, MacArthur, Eisenhower or Patton would never have announced their time of departure from any battlefield, but now 'withdrawal' is often the second item on the agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom