it would be amazing if obama overturned the global gag rule today.
it would be amazing if obama overturned the global gag rule today.
He done closed Guantanamo.
[quote author=bowieluva link=topic=17857.msg1160550#msg1160550 date=1232651752]
He done closed Guantanamo.
[/quote]
Nobody can say he isn't making good on his promises.
"A vagabond dreamer, a rhymer and singer of songs
Singing to no one and nowhere to really belong." - Waylon Jennings
A half negro as president? Well as long as it's a man I have no qualms with that.
[quote author=Dapper Dude link=topic=17857.msg1160553#msg1160553 date=1232651928]
A half negro as president? Well as long as it's a man I have no qualms with that.
[/quote]
LOL, it was nice knowing you Dapper Dude!!!
[quote author=bowieluva link=topic=17857.msg1160550#msg1160550 date=1232651752]
He done closed Guantanamo.
[/quote]
Okay, fine, he wants to do that. I get it. So what are we doing with the terrorists we are housing there? Until they get clear on the future, I say 
[quote author=Chompin link=topic=17857.msg1160641#msg1160641 date=1232656565]
Okay, fine, he wants to do that. I get it. So what are we doing with the terrorists we are housing there? Until they get clear on the future, I say
[/quote]
Well they are discussing the issue f transporting them, but Obama gave Guantanamo a year to shut down, so he isn't like 'everyone out NOW'. It's not going to be all Dark Knight with all the prisoners on a ferry. I imagine the idea is they have a year to determine who's a terrorist and who is just some poor arab, and then they will relocate people to a serious prison facility. Guantanamo is infamous for detaining people who aren't guilty of anything for endless amounts of time. The purpose of this is to give them a swift kick in the butt to get moving and stop violating people's rights.
[quote author=bowieluva link=topic=17857.msg1160654#msg1160654 date=1232657492]
Well they are discussing the issue f transporting them, but Obama gave Guantanamo a year to shut down, so he isn't like 'everyone out NOW'. It's not going to be all Dark Knight with all the prisoners on a ferry. I imagine the idea is they have a year to determine who's a terrorist and who is just some poor arab, and then they will relocate people to a serious prison facility. Guantanamo is infamous for detaining people who aren't guilty of anything for endless amounts of time. The purpose of this is to give them a swift kick in the butt to get moving and stop violating people's rights.
[/quote]
Well some would argue those people don't deserve rights. There is a fine line between protecting the country and doing it the "ethical" way. I am at the point where I just want to be protected as much as possible, so morally I can accept things that are a bit dirty.
[quote author=Chompin link=topic=17857.msg1160665#msg1160665 date=1232657739]
Well some would argue those people don't deserve rights. There is a fine line between protecting the country and doing it the "ethical" way. I am at the point where I just want to be protected as much as possible, so morally I can accept things that are a bit dirty.
[/quote]
That's scary. Because we're trying to prove that our way of government is ethically and morally superior, and resorting to stripping away the rights of people on a suspicion is more akin to the way of life they're used to in certain middle eastern countries. That's NOT what America is about and it is NOT the message we want to send. We're supposed to be BETTER than that.
Not to mention, AGAIN, there are tons of people sitting in Guantanamo that have no connection to terrorism, and no one is weeding those out. Their rights should be stripped when they're innocent?
""Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
[quote author=Chompin link=topic=17857.msg1160665#msg1160665 date=1232657739]
Well some would argue those people don't deserve rights. There is a fine line between protecting the country and doing it the "ethical" way. I am at the point where I just want to be protected as much as possible, so morally I can accept things that are a bit dirty.
[/quote]
I had the honor of hearing a speech given by one of the lawyers who is working pro bono to help free innocent people from Guantanamo.
He'll be the first to tell you that not everyone at Guantanamo is innocent, but the people who are have suffered egregious human rights violations. There are people who have spent 5+ years there because they share the same name as someone who is a terrorist. They don't have any contact with the outside world, and many have been denied the right to a lawyer. Some have become seriously mentally ill because of what they've been through. It's sickening.
It doesn't make me feel any safer knowning that an innocent person is rotting in jail all in the name of the "War on Terror."
We signed the Geneva Convention for a reson. We have no excuses for violating it.
<br /><br />I want to go to Heaven for the weather and Hell for the company.
[quote author=bowieluva link=topic=17857.msg1160674#msg1160674 date=1232657965]
That's scary. Because we're trying to prove that our way of government is ethically and morally superior, and resorting to stripping away the rights of people on a suspicion is more akin to the way of life they're used to in certain middle eastern countries. That's NOT what America is about and it is NOT the message we want to send. We're supposed to be BETTER than that.
Not to mention, AGAIN, there are tons of people sitting in Guantanamo that have no connection to terrorism, and no one is weeding those out. Their rights should be stripped when they're innocent?
""Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
[/quote]
Yeah, I agree with what you are saying honestly. But at the same time, I consider it a necessary evil. We have not been attacked in almost 8 years. That is good enough to quench any morality dilemma I might have about it all. Priorities I suppose. Granted I think the primary, and almost sole, purpose of our federal government should be security. And they are only doing half the job right now, considering how open our borders are. Close Gitmo, then close the borders, I will take that trade.
[quote author=Chompin link=topic=17857.msg1160679#msg1160679 date=1232658229]
Yeah, I agree with what you are saying honestly. But at the same time, I consider it a necessary evil. We have not been attacked in almost 8 years. That is good enough to quench any morality dilemma I might have about it all. Priorities I suppose. Granted I think the primary, and almost sole, purpose of our federal government should be security. And they are only doing half the job right now, considering how open our borders are. Close Gitmo, then close the borders, I will take that trade.
[/quote]
LOL. What about the decades we went without being attacked before. That's like the Simpsons where Lisa is like dad saying the bear police are keeping bears away when there's only ever been one bear attack is like saying this rock repels panthers.
Homer: Explain.
Lisa: Well, do you see any panthers?
Homer: Lisa I would like to buy your rock.
Our borders are open because that's the whole point of America, and one of the standards we set. And what Mishira said. I don't think sacrificing everything our country stands for should ever be a necessary evil.
[quote author=bowieluva link=topic=17857.msg1160680#msg1160680 date=1232658395]
LOL. What about the decades we went without being attacked before. That's like the Simpsons where Lisa is like dad saying the bear police are keeping bears away when there's only ever been one bear attack is like saying this rock repels panthers.
Homer: Explain.
Lisa: Well, do you see any panthers?
Homer: Lisa I would like to buy your rock.
Our borders are open because that's the whole point of America, and one of the standards we set. And what Mishira said. I don't think sacrificing everything our country stands for should ever be a necessary evil.
[/quote]
Well this is a new one, using a cartoon to explain a point. I give you credit for originality.
Anyway, we won't agree on the Gitmo stuff...but so long as they have a good idea as to where to go from there, all is fine in dandy. I just wish they were more upfront with their future plans. It is almost as if they are doing something with no plan, but as you said, it is a year, not next week.
As far as the borders thing...whatever. If you are trying to say that illegal aliens, people that have no interest in our country other than what they can get out if it, being allowed to live here almost unfettered, is a good thing for national security, I am not sure you really care about how secure we are.
[quote author=Chompin link=topic=17857.msg1160704#msg1160704 date=1232659010]
Well this is a new one, using a cartoon to explain a point. I give you credit for originality.
Anyway, we won't agree on the Gitmo stuff...but so long as they have a good idea as to where to go from there, all is fine in dandy. I just wish they were more upfront with their future plans. It is almost as if they are doing something with no plan, but as you said, it is a year, not next week.
As far as the borders thing...whatever. If you are trying to say that illegal aliens, people that have no interest in our country other than what they can get out if it, being allowed to live here almost unfettered, is a good thing for national security, I am not sure you really care about how secure we are.
[/quote]
If you want to get cynical, I would say this is why EVERYONE has emigrated to America. It's not so easy to become a citizen. My friend's mom has paid thousands of dollars she doesn't have to get citizenship.
And yeah I prefer liberty over security, for sure. I've never felt endangered in America by anyone other than crazy Americans. There's a much greater chance I will be stabbed by some irate ex than a terrorist.
I believe in the ideals this country stands for,and I'm grateful that Obama seems dedicated to getting us all back on track. We haven't been practicing what we preach for a while. Fix America and I think we'll see the rest of the world improve as well.
[quote author=bowieluva link=topic=17857.msg1160714#msg1160714 date=1232659277]
If you want to get cynical, I would say this is why EVERYONE has emigrated to America. It's not so easy to become a citizen. My friend's mom has paid thousands of dollars she doesn't have to get citizenship.
And yeah I prefer liberty over security, for sure. I've never felt endangered in America by anyone other than crazy Americans. There's a much greater chance I will be stabbed by some irate ex than a terrorist.
I believe in the ideals this country stands for,and I'm grateful that Obama seems dedicated to getting us all back on track. We haven't been practicing what we preach for a while. Fix America and I think we'll see the rest of the world improve as well.
[/quote]
Emigration to become an American, to be a citizen of this country and be proud of it is a whole other ball of wax. People who have no stake in our country other than their own personal gains have no place here, in my opinion. I am proud of my country, warts and all. I believe it is the best country in the world, warts and all. And I want to know the people around me feel the same way. An illegal immigrant breaking countless laws does not have our county's future in mind at all.
[quote author=Chompin link=topic=17857.msg1160742#msg1160742 date=1232660010]
Emigration to become an American, to be a citizen of this country and be proud of it is a whole other ball of wax. People who have no stake in our country other than their own personal gains have no place here, in my opinion. I am proud of my country, warts and all. I believe it is the best country in the world, warts and all. And I want to know the people around me feel the same way. An illegal immigrant breaking countless laws does not have our county's future in mind at all.
[/quote]
Two things. ONe, you say that but I know a shit ton of people, including my best friend's mom, who snuck into this country as illegal immigrants and desperately WANT to be citizens now. It's VERY difficult for south american people to come here and go through the proper channels because those channels are vague and difficult and costly.
Two: I can't justify us turning our backs on South America until we close down the school of americas and STOP interfering with south american governments. We have supported countless military coupes to overthrow democratically elected governments. We've trained the police who go in and kidnap people in Guatemala and execute them for speaking out. Once we stop assisting in making conditions in South America so deplorable that they have no choice but to try to escape it, then I will say we no longer owe anyone.
Chompin, you know i usually like you and i respect your opinion and all but what exactly have you done to deserve to be a u.s. citizen? Oh. You were born here? Yeah. Me too. I just find it hard to see people who have fortunate enough to have been born here have absolutely no compassion for people who want to live here. And yeah. There are some immigrants who suck hard. But also, honestly, the majority that are here just want a better life for themselves and their kids.and are just trying to contribute as they can. Believe me. The service and food industries would shut down if you cut off immigration.
Sorry. As a post script, that wasn't so eloquent. I just can't stand people having no compassion because they were born american and deserve to be here.
New York's governor has lost his fucking mind.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/22/kirsten-gillibrand-new-yo_n_160195.html
Kirsten Gillibrand: New York's Next Senator
[size=14pt]Gillibrand is both praised and criticized[/size]
Battle lines were swiftly drawn Friday over the appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand, the pro-abortion rights, pro-Hillary, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun Blue Dog Democrat.
In a flurry of news releases, Gillibrand came under harsh criticism from her party's left wing and advocates for immigrants and gun control. But women's and gay groups, and die-hard Clinton fans voiced delight, and supporters predicted she'll grow in the job.
"New York is poised to have its first U.S. senator who supports marriage equality for same-sex couples," announced Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, after talking to Gillibrand late Thursday night. That praise was echoed by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group; by EMILY's List, which works to elect women to public office, and NARAL Pro-Choice, as well as by The New Agenda, founded by Clinton backers in reaction to the Democratic primaries.
But a new Web site was already mobilizing to organize the party's left wing behind a 2010 primary challenge to Gillibrand, organized by Jonathan Tasini, who opposed Clinton in the 2006 primary.
Gillibrand's positions on immigration were deemed "deeply troubling" in a statement issued by the Immigrant Coalition, an umbrella group that estimates it represents one of every five New York residents. The coalition said she backed requiring local police to take on immigration enforcement duties and spending more on border security but appeared to oppose any path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants - "positions that put her at odds with the majority of New Yorkers."
Gillibrand's gun positions have already drawn fire from Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), a danger that Democratic strategists said should be taken seriously.
"If she has a primary, she could lose, because the initials 'NRA' are not things that people in New York City and the suburbs wear on chains around their necks," said Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had been a strong supporter of Caroline Kennedy's bid for the Senate, Friday issued a statement noting his "strong disagreement" with Gillibrand on gun control.
"She has voted to keep critical data needed to track illegal gun traffickers from law enforcement, has voted to tie the hands of the ATF, and has also voted to protect dealers who sell guns illegally," Bloomberg said.
But Sen. Charles Schumer, who had championed Gillibrand's bid, argued Friday that he had once been just as narrow in his views when he was a Brooklyn congressman. He challenged her to join him on a "listening tour" such as the one Hillary Clinton did in 1999, to understand downstate concerns.
"Let's go to Bayside and Bed-Stuy, to Tottenville and Eastchester, to Hicksville and Huntington, Williamsburg, Williamsbridge and Washington Heights," he said.
Democratic consultant George Arzt believes Gillibrand would be wise to take him up on the offer. "She has a year to defuse all the opposition coming out of this process," Arzt said, noting the bruised feelings left by Paterson's handling of the selection. "She has one year."
And now the fun begins.....
http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/politics/92856/group-questions-gillibrand-s-stance-on-guns/Default.aspx
Originally Posted by bowieluva
I do love how she agrees with Dems on almost evrything and yet they still tear her up. Keep telling yourselves you're the open minded party.
[quote author=HyperU2 link=topic=17857.msg1165155#msg1165155 date=1233023515]
I do love how she agrees with Dems on almost evrything and yet they still tear her up. Keep telling yourselves you're the open minded party.
[/quote]
People in the city take their gun control very seriously We're trying to figure out how to have less, while you guys are trying to figure out how to get more.
[quote author=Ron_NYC link=topic=17857.msg1165162#msg1165162 date=1233023805]
People in the city take their gun control very seriously We're trying to figure out how to have less, while you guys are trying to figure out how to get more.
[/quote]
Yeah, she's a State Senator though.
[quote author=HyperU2 link=topic=17857.msg1165155#msg1165155 date=1233023515]
I do love how she agrees with Dems on almost evrything and yet they still tear her up. Keep telling yourselves you're the open minded party.
[/quote]
She needs to put on her Donkey pin.
Yea, from upstate. She won't be around long. She won't even make it out of the Democratic Primary anyway. And she has to be smart enough to know that Pleasantville and Brooklyn need different gun laws. She can't change a thing in the city other than her own popularity. 100% agreement with the NRA?! Insanity!
GOP happier with Gillibrand, says poll
Business First of Buffalo - by G. Scott Thomas
Republicans are happier than Democrats with New York’s new Democratic U.S. senator, according to a poll released Monday.
A new Quinnipiac University Poll shows 56 percent of Republicans reacting favorably to the appointment of Senator-designate Kirsten Gillibrand, D-Hudson, while only 41 percent of Democrats say they approve.
Gillibrand was named to the Senate seat on Friday by Gov. David Paterson. She will replace Hillary Clinton, who became U.S. secretary of state last week. The new senator will be sworn in by Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday.
The appointment was controversial for several reasons. Among them: Gillibrand’s virtual anonymity outside of the Albany-area congressional district she had represented since 2007; her conservative record on several issues, including gun rights; and Paterson’s perceived snub of Caroline Kennedy, once considered the frontrunner for the Senate seat.
Gillibrand’s appointment was approved by 46 percent of the New Yorkers surveyed by Quinnipiac. Thirty percent disapproved, and the remaining 24 percent had no opinion.
Republicans approved by a margin of 56 to 27 percent, Democrats by 41 to 35 percent, and independent voters by 49 to 21 percent.
New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, during a stop in Buffalo Monday, had some words of advice for his new colleague.
“Kirsten is going to have to learn the state. I would suggest she visit Western New York early and often,” he said.
Gov. Paterson’s overall approval rate is 50 percent after the Gillibrand appointment, down from 53 percent earlier in the month. His approval rate rose four percentage points among Republicans to 45 percent, but dropped eight points among Democrats to 54 percent.
Quinnipiac surveyed 1,047 registered voters across the state from Jan. 23 to Jan. 25. The poll’s margin of error is three percentage points.
Also, a new Siena (College) Research Institute poll showed Paterson’s favorability with state voters is declining while that of Attorney general Andrew Cuomo is rising.
Albany-based SRI reported Jan. 26 that in a potential gubernatorial Democratic primary in 2010, Paterson’s lead over Cuomo is just two points, down from 23 points in December.
Paterson has a 60-23 favorable rating compared to 63-22 last month. Cuomo, meanwhile, has a 64-17 rating, up from a favorable rating of 59-24 in December.
“For the first time since he’s been governor, more people are inclined to support ‘someone else’ than they are to elect Paterson as governor in 2010,” said Steven Greenberg, SRI spokesman.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a potential republican candidate for governor, has cut the deficit against both Paterson and Cuomo in the last month. Paterson is ahead of Giuliani, 44-42 percent, down 51-38, while Cuomo’s margin is now 48-39 percent, down from 50-37 percent in December.
She's pro gay marriage and abortion and New York Dems hate her for supporting a Constitutional Right. lulz
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote