RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


redwoodgirl -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 11:40:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: redwoodgirl

Sorry to interupt, but if some asshats came into my home or town with all this kind of mess in mind, it'd be my gun first, and court after.
Don't let me forget to mention that Im a Dem 100%.

eta: I AM all about peace, but if someones gonna try to come here and fuck my peace up, all bets are off.


Better make sure what you are doing first.

Otherwise it may be gun first, court second, and the rest of your life in jail after.



Good point, that. That was my tough girl way of saying, theres no way i would back down if the need arose, ya with me now? 




Irishknight -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 3:07:18 PM)

I have to say that I agree that there is no either/or choice between ideals and safety.  We can have both.

There will sometimes have to be a choice between convenience and safety such as at airports.  Had we been willing to make that choice in the late 90s, when it was suggested numerous times, we might have prevented 9/11.  Just bringing us up to standards with many other countries on airport security would have prevented those attacks. 




NeedToUseYou -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 4:49:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

 “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,”    
President Obama, Inaugural Address


I agree with the statement, but must point out, Obama thus far has little to stand on in terms of guarding our "ideals". I mean, he did vote to give the financials billions of dollars, and a large fraction of all that money siphoned to the financials is a cunt hair away from literal giving. So, is that an "ideal", I don't think so. So my question to Mr Obama, if he was here would be what exactly are these "ideals" as he understands them to be. Because it seems to me many of his "ideals" are a 180 degrees from what mine are. In the case of torturing people, I agree with banning that, and think that is pretty much a standard belief amongst most of the population, outside of idiotic 24 scenarios. There are pardon powers for those situations anyway. Thus legalizing it, isn't really necessary, or condoning it outside of 1000000 to 1 scenarios.

Overall, so far and I agree he's not been in office long enough to lay a final verdict, but to me he's speaking of his "ideals" not necessarily the ideas this country has historically stood for.

However, I do agree in a general sense that sacrificing your values for safety is the definition of a coward, and is the excuse used for doing all kinds of horrific things to others, be that financial, war, or social.






Owner59 -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 5:06:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Why does this response not surprise me.

I'm not going to bother to teach history to you, I don't have the time or patience for it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
What in the hell are you talking about?




Ummmm the minute men and militias used gorilla tactics and other unconventional methods.Rarely did they mass and fight standing in rank.

You`re describing what the British and other Europeans did.

You`re welcome for the history lesson.




KaineD -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 5:12:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

As I hear the words from Obama, I hear him saying all the techniques used by Bush to fight terrorism and defend the country were contrary to our "ideals".  I'm not talking about fighting for our freedom, for our family safety from terror bombs or as my family has done in WW2, Korea, VietNam but, not Iraq yet.   I'm concerned about throwing aside the
ability to develop or extract information using technology as the NSA did under Bush, or waterboarding as the CIA and army intel did in Gitmo.  I am not interested in the rights ofhas people sworn to kill me and harm my country.  On a very personal level, to what extreme would you go to extract information if you had a person in your possession who had your mom, your wife, your kid hidden somewhere?  Make sure he gets a good eight hours of sleep, make sure he goes to bed with a full stomach, make sure his Miranda rights were explained fully, get him a lawyer to insure his rights are protected, or..or just start chopping off one finger, one toe one ball at a time and anything else to keep him alive and in pain until he tells you what you need to save your family. Fuck em....waterboard the bastards.


That's a completely ridiculous hypothetical.  Watching too much 24?




Coldwarrior57 -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 5:28:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

As I hear the words from Obama, I hear him saying all the techniques used by Bush to fight terrorism and defend the country were contrary to our "ideals".  I'm not talking about fighting for our freedom, for our family safety from terror bombs or as my family has done in WW2, Korea, VietNam but, not Iraq yet.   I'm concerned about throwing aside the
ability to develop or extract information using technology as the NSA did under Bush, or waterboarding as the CIA and army intel did in Gitmo.  I am not interested in the rights ofhas people sworn to kill me and harm my country.  On a very personal level, to what extreme would you go to extract information if you had a person in your possession who had your mom, your wife, your kid hidden somewhere?  Make sure he gets a good eight hours of sleep, make sure he goes to bed with a full stomach, make sure his Miranda rights were explained fully, get him a lawyer to insure his rights are protected, or..or just start chopping off one finger, one toe one ball at a time and anything else to keep him alive and in pain until he tells you what you need to save your family. Fuck em....waterboard the bastards.

Go get em cory!
you tell em!
I am with you.
I think he is trying to say , ( and I may be missreading this) that the IDEALS  ie.. (US Constitution) will be applied to every one. WRONG ! The us constitution is for US, the US citizens, it is CLEARLY stated in the pre amble. last line FOR US AND OUR POSTERITY.
Obama is full of shit, spewing what ever he thinks the people want to hear.
He did tell the REPUBLICANS on the hill to STOP listening to limbauh if they want to get anything from his administration.
WOW. if that would have come from a president that had an R after his name , the press would be SHITTING its collective PANTS.
BUT because he has a D after his name  , its GREAT.
I was going to really try hard to sit back and just not say anything negative about obama , untill he made the comment about rush. I dont listen to rush , but who the the flying fuck does that dumb shiteater  think he is , did he NOT read the CONSTITUTION ? the FIRST ammendment !?
as far as I am concerned FIGHTS ON !




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 5:31:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

It needs to be an elected official to count.


To count for what? That some people by into the fear no matter what their party affiliation was my point.

quote:


Like the way republicans use fear/lies to gain influence and go to war.


Or how any political party uses a fear of something to gain votes or support.

quote:


Haven`t seen the multi-colored terror threat warning level silly thingy sense that republican rat rove jump off ship.


There was only one color, orange. In the beginning it kept fear going, but since it was never actually used to be informational, people started to ignore it.

quote:


What color was it when bush left?


Orange I believe, but I did not pay much attention to it anyway.

quote:


Just trying to balance out your biases,buddy.[;)]


What bias? You mean my personal experiences and opinions. Doubt you could come close to balancing anything of mine, including an intellectual discourse.




Owner59 -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 5:36:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redwood girl

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: redwoodgirl

Sorry to interupt, but if some asshats came into my home or town with all this kind of mess in mind, it'd be my gun first, and court after.
Don't let me forget to mention that Im a Dem 100%.

eta: I AM all about peace, but if someones gonna try to come here and fuck my peace up, all bets are off.


Better make sure what you are doing first.

Otherwise it may be gun first, court second, and the rest of your life in jail after.



Good point, that. That was my tough girl way of saying, theres no way i would back down if the need arose, ya with me now? 


Take a look at every post in favor of torture.The word if appears constantly.

There is no if question, that isn`t crafted to produce a specific answer.It`s dishonest.

If you write a law outlawing all torture but for only the most extreme and rarest exceptions,human nature will have someone driving a Mack truck through that loophole.

If at the torturer`s trail,when asked why he pealed of that woman`s finger nails while her husband and UMs watched,are we going to accept a"well we thought she had info,so we violated her family to get it,.......ummmm sorry"

Every tom dick and harry will whip out the excuse when it`s convenient.

The army doesn`t want it.The whole military doesn`t want it.The intelligence community doesn`t want it and most people don`t want a pro torture policy.

Only a very small wedge of the population does.Just a few.

And the only way they can get anyone to agree at all is to construct the most biased,selfserving questions possible with a whole lot of "if"s in them.All hypotheticals and all conveniently arranged to produce a specific answer.

Of course someone it going to say yes "if" all the "if"s line up and "if" their family will surely parish otherwise.

That`s not an honest debate and it`s no way to make law.

These are the folks who always claim that government can`t do anything right.

But they`re gonna tell us they`ll get this right.

Still can`t belive it`s even a subject of debate.




slvemike4u -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 5:45:16 PM)

But Owner it is the only way to construct a pro-torture argument that gets anywhere.First you take the most extreme of extremes than you personalize it to the nth degree.....and viola you have a question worthy of the proposition.




redwoodgirl -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 5:49:48 PM)

torture? i wasnt talking about torture at all. i was talking about a straight up fight...




slvemike4u -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 5:53:50 PM)

And I was referring to the other 95 % of the thread.The one contained within the OP.Sorry for the interruption ,carry on.....




BamaD -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 5:57:44 PM)

Both Carter and Clinton came in talking about how "moral" our forgien policy would be.  To prove it they blinded our intellegence comunity and persuaded our enemies that we would not fight back if attacked.  This is what scares me about Obama's stance on morality.  Besides POWs have no constitutional rights, check any war we or anyone else has fought.




slvemike4u -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 6:05:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Both Carter and Clinton came in talking about how "moral" our forgien policy would be.  To prove it they blinded our intellegence comunity and persuaded our enemies that we would not fight back if attacked.  This is what scares me about Obama's stance on morality.  Besides POWs have no constitutional rights, check any war we or anyone else has fought.
The fly in that particular bowl of soup is that POWs do have rights under the Geneva Convention ,of which we are a signatory.This was the genisis for the Bush Administrations invention of a whole new classification of "non-combatants....you know the loop-hole devised to suspend law and create a so called black-hole in which to pigeon hole those the ADMINISTRATION wanted to hold with-out charging.




Owner59 -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 6:17:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redwoodgirl

torture? i wasnt talking about torture at all. i was talking about a straight up fight...


This thread is about the use of torture and our ideals relating to it.




Owner59 -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 6:32:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Both Carter and Clinton came in talking about how "moral" our forgien policy would be.  To prove it they blinded our intellegence comunity and persuaded our enemies that we would not fight back if attacked.  This is what scares me about Obama's stance on morality.  Besides POWs have no constitutional rights, check any war we or anyone else has fought.


"Homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August"

"you acknowledged that al-queda cells were in the United States"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpEwGmSsmM

Aug 6,2001 PDB   -----"bin-laden determined to attack in the United States"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then that clown made her Secretary of State !

Talk about rewarding failure!!!!

Imagine our enemies thinking,"we just successfully attacked them and the stooge who drooped the ball got a promotion and pay raise".

What better way to say,"attack us"?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any examples of how Carter or Clinton "blinded our intelligence community".

And when Clinton sent Cruse Missiles deep into Afghanistan to takeout bin-laden,what did the republicans do?

They cheered" No war for Monica!No war for Monica!

I couldn`t think of a better way to tell our enemies to attack us.As soon as a dem POTUS takes action,republicans respond by trying to stop him!!

History`s a bitch,isn`t it?[:D]




redwoodgirl -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 6:34:28 PM)

Yes I am well aware of that. But it'd be much easier to deal with it quickly and cleanly.




corysub -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 7:36:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Both Carter and Clinton came in talking about how "moral" our forgien policy would be.  To prove it they blinded our intellegence comunity and persuaded our enemies that we would not fight back if attacked.  This is what scares me about Obama's stance on morality.  Besides POWs have no constitutional rights, check any war we or anyone else has fought.


"Homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August"

"you acknowledged that al-queda cells were in the United States"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpEwGmSsmM

Aug 6,2001 PDB   -----"bin-laden determined to attack in the United States"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then that clown made her Secretary of State !

Talk about rewarding failure!!!!

Imagine our enemies thinking,"we just successfully attacked them and the stooge who drooped the ball got a promotion and pay raise".

What better way to say,"attack us"?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any examples of how Carter or Clinton "blinded our intelligence community".

And when Clinton sent Cruse Missiles deep into Afghanistan to takeout bin-laden,what did the republicans do?

They cheered" No war for Monica!No war for Monica!

I couldn`t think of a better way to tell our enemies to attack us.As soon as a dem POTUS takes action,republicans respond by trying to stop him!!

History`s a bitch,isn`t it?[:D]


In the 1970's it wasn't just Carter, but the democratic Congress that set upon the C.I.A. and demoralized that agency with constant hearings and commissions.  Carter put the nail on the coffin, the weakest President in the 20th Century, Carter bowed to Congress who shoved FISA down his throat.
Jimmy Carter's lack of understanding and inexperience in foreign affairs planted the seeds for a great deal of the problems we see today. Carter believed in "technology" not in people. After first considering Ted Sorenson to head the C.I.A. Carter changed his mind when stories resurfaced about Sorenson stealing classified papers probably to protect the Kennedy's (Sound familiar..sound like Sandy Berger??) You remember Sorenson, he was the bright young speech writer for JFK.   Carter appointed nutcase  "Turner who treated the CIA as if it were a political organization. He drove out CIA staffers and brought in his own team of naval officers who buffered him from agency professionals. He also cut human resources, abolishing 820 positions, and devoted more resources to electronic and high-tech surveillance. This approach was partially discredited when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, much to Carter’s surprise, and the Shah was topple' and replaced by Khomeini, whose regime quickly took American hostages and precipitated a prolonged crisis. Many argue that this episode marks the true beginning of our current war with Islamic radicals." Quotation from link below:
http://www.snapshield.com/www_problems/United_States/Americas%20Security.htm

Jimmy Carter was responsible for removing our agents and their sources "on the ground" in the mideast and blinded our C.I.A. which had to depend on the Israeli and U.K. intel people.

I remember Clinton sending off missiles that destroyed a "milk factory" during the Lewinsky disgrace, wagging the dog, and it's not the movie I'm referring too!  The operatives who hit the Towers on 9/11 were in-country training during the Clinton BJ administration.  Billy was seriously anti military, as is Obama, and reduced the army from 18 to 10 divisions so money could be taken from defense to fund his pet social programs.  And now we have Barack appointing Panetta to head the C.I.A., another management type guy like Admiral Turner with no experience in the intelligence community and an outsider to everyone in the agency. And what's with Obama treating Hillary like dog dirt...the President has Mitchell in the mideast, Holbrook going somewhere else, Joe Biden discussing Afganistan and the casualties we can expect (good news for parents and spouses of soldiers) doing the work of a "Secretary of State".  Why the hell did Hillary take that job.  She has be painted into a corner by Barack...I don't think she will last the year as Secty of State.

The Statue of Liberty should be holding a sign welcoming new arrivals "Please tighten safety belts, the path ahead is very uncertain). 




stef -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 7:53:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

The Statue of Liberty should be holding a sign welcoming new arrivals "Please tighten safety belts, the path ahead is very uncertain).

It can replace the sign that's been there for the last eight years "All hope abandon ye who enter here."

~stef




Owner59 -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 8:18:08 PM)

ORIGINAL: corysub

"The Statue of Liberty should be holding a sign welcoming new arrivals "Please tighten safety belts, the path ahead is very uncertain). "

Yup,fear and frighten,scare and terrorize.We have had enough!

We`re not interested in the doom and gloom predictions or neo-cons threatening strife if they don`t get elected or get their way.

Is this all republicans have to offer?




Coldwarrior57 -> RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice........ (1/25/2009 8:21:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Both Carter and Clinton came in talking about how "moral" our forgien policy would be.  To prove it they blinded our intellegence comunity and persuaded our enemies that we would not fight back if attacked.  This is what scares me about Obama's stance on morality.  Besides POWs have no constitutional rights, check any war we or anyone else has fought.

"Homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August"

"you acknowledged that al-queda cells were in the United States"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpEwGmSsmM

Aug 6,2001 PDB   -----"bin-laden determined to attack in the United States"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then that clown made her Secretary of State !

Talk about rewarding failure!!!!

Imagine our enemies thinking,"we just successfully attacked them and the stooge who drooped the ball got a promotion and pay raise".

What better way to say,"attack us"?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any examples of how Carter or Clinton "blinded our intelligence community".

And when Clinton sent Cruse Missiles deep into Afghanistan to takeout bin-laden,what did the republicans do?

They cheered" No war for Monica!No war for Monica!

I couldn`t think of a better way to tell our enemies to attack us.As soon as a dem POTUS takes action,republicans respond by trying to stop him!!

History`s a bitch,isn`t it?[:D]

WOW are you really that ignorant , or just so anti W , that you cannot or will not do any research to find the truth?
I typed this in on google  "Clinton blinds intel agency" and there was 185 k responses. but according to you they DONT exists. thats ok keep on living in your foggy world , where only if you have  a D after your name your right and if you have a
R after the name their are a NAZI, its your mind set that this country is such a mess, your a partizan HACK.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875