Its still open, nobody is being tried, same problem but no anger from the left anymore?
I'm always up for exposing liberal hypocrisy.
I think it is actually the opposite of flaccid. He really brings the wood when he's parroting Fox.
Ohhhhhh Sean, ohhhhhhhhhhhhh...baby.
Oh, you're talking about penises...
.... .... thank you for bringing them into a discussion about an American Gulag...
... that was really "on topic" and "relevant"....
There's plenty of anger about Gitmo still being open; you just refuse to see it.
I've thought the same thing. After giving it some thought, here is what I come up with. First, the Candidate Obama didn't have all the information President Obama has. Second, if not Guantanamo, where? If we house them here, we only create a tempting target for terrorist. I think he originally thought their host countries would take them back. That hasn't been the case for many.
The idea that it's "Congress" not the President is very telling. It's been a D led congress his entire presidency. Even they don't feel comfortable with moving them.
Then there is the idea of clasification. Are they terrorist or are they combatants. If they are the former, they should be tried in the US Court System. If they were captured during combat operations they are POWs and should be tried under a Military Tribunal.
The average liberal wasn't the ones bitching about it in the first place. Only the news media said we were. I'm glad its still open. I'm glad nobody has been tried.
Liberals are not upset about the non-closure of Gitmo because it would discredit their godlike, vacation-taking, money-spending, $600. earring wearing icons in the WH.
Tell the world they're gonna be returned to their native lands, put 'em on a boat. Half way there the boat sinks. All are lost at sea! Close Gitmo. End of problem.
I'm a problem solver! :
Those interested in justice such as myself are waiting for Obama to finally close Guantanamo according to his 2008 election promise..
You have been very patient and quiet.
I bet you were a little louder during the Bush years.
Where in the world is lmc, defender of the faith?
apparrntly most of those collected by the Bush bounty Hunters have been released from Gitmo.
There are a few that according to AG Holder will be tried in New York Court. waiting for this to happen !
According to this report you may be waiting a loooooong time.
And the liberal Democrat congress that is getting booted voted to not spend the money to move detainees from GITMO.
I think you may have been hoodwinked by the Bamster.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … lenews_wsj
Hubpages is not the real place for political outrage there any many other sites for that such as Newsvine.com
The only outrage was because a Republican started GITMO.
If a Democrat continues the policy its ok.
All Americans (Left Or Right Wing) should be lobbying for the complete close of Guantanamo Bay
It is an international embarrassment for the United States breaches numerous conventions and treaties signed by the United States as well as being morallly repugnant
Indeed. Either the people being held at Guantanamo are prisoners of war* (in which case, treat them as prisoners of war) or they're accused criminals** awaiting a speedy*** and fair trial, or they're something else: victims of extrajudicial detention.
*It's a war on terrorism, right? If it's really a war, these guys are prisoners of it.
**If they're really guilty, and we've got the evidence, then why no trial(s)? You'd figure that it'd be open-and-shut, right? Oh, wait, maybe the accused gave evidence under torture...boy would it look bad for the US to admit that evidence into the trial. It'd seriously damage our moral standing in the world. Maybe that's why no trials: we'd have to throw out pretty much all the evidence, and it wouldn't be so open-and-shut, and these guys might just be found not guilty, and then they'd have grounds to sue the US for false arrest and extrajudicial detention.
***Yeah, they've been in there for how many years now? Their trial, when it finally happens, will be anything but 'speedy.'
Jim, are you a nightowl like me? Or do you live on the West Coast?
"House Democrats found themselves voting once again Wednesday on legislation that would block Guantánamo detainees from being tried or held in the United States. This time, there was no fight over the issue.
The provision included in the fiscal 2011 spending bill (HR 3082) passed by the House on a party-line vote would deal yet another blow to President Obama’s dismal chances of keeping his campaign pledge to close the facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Republicans have been providing most of the momentum for efforts to scuttle the administration plan, fearing that terrorism suspects would be relocated to U.S. prisons.
The most recent previous vote on the issue came in May when the House adopted, 282-131, a GOP motion to recommit the fiscal 2011 defense authorization bill (HR 5136). On that occasion, 114 Democrats voted with Republicans for a ban on any U.S. trials of Guantánamo detainees.
The Democratic acceptance of the Guantánamo language puzzled some supporters of the White House policy.
Chris Anders, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, speculated that Democratic leaders put the language in the spending bill in an unsuccessful effort to win Republican support for the continuing appropriations measure. “It’s pretty amazing and dismaying that after a year and a half of these kinds of fights going back and forth, Democrats entirely on their own stick this kind of provision into a must-pass bill,” he said."
“Congress should not limit the tools available to the executive branch in bringing terrorists to justice and advancing our national security interests,” said Reid Cherlin, a White House spokesman.
-- Tim Starks, CQ Staff
Can't really be upset with Obama , it's Congress.
When Obama was elected, I guessed Gitmo would not be closed within the time frame specified. I also guessed the the outrage over it would fade quietly away.
I guess to some people a lot of things become more palatable when it's your guy doing it.
Did you actually visit any liberal or progressive websites to come to this conclusion, or did you just make stuff up out of thin air as usual?
http://www.thenation.com/search/apaches … ted%20desc
http://www.google.com/search?q=guantana … e&tbs=
http://www.google.com/search?q=guantana … e&tbs=
http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0 … wayfront=0
Shall I go on?
Ah, the Daily Kooks....do they really count? I mean, they're usually mad about something ALL the time....
Who reads the socialist worker?
Where is MSNBC/CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS?
We were inundated with liberal whining about criminals being held at GITMO.
Now, I have to go look for the outrage.
Once again exposing liberal hypocrisy.
Nah - you were inundated with conservatives whining about the liberals whining about criminals being held at GITMO.
"Where is MSNBC/CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS?"
MSNBC/CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS is the corporate media, not the liberal media.
You asked why liberals weren't outraged about Guantanamo anymore and I gave you copious evidence from some of the most respected liberal and progressive publications (as well as some that are less respected) that real liberals still are, which you chose to ignore because it doesn't fit into your convenient worldview. Who's the hypocrite?
"MSNBC/CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS is the corporate media, not the liberal media."
I know you're serious so I will refrain from laughing.
I won't. Anyone who thinks that MSNBC/CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS are liberal doesn't know the first thing about liberalism, but then, you prove that every time you open your mouth.
you may have hit the nail with this one.
some issues don't have easy answers, legal hurdles may be more the issue than political will.
Maybe it is because they don't need a media company to tell them what they must be upset about and actually think for themselves? Something doesn't always need to be on TV for people to still be upset about something.
And TV media is as fickle as a teeny bopper.
Maybe it is because liberals get upset precisely because a media company told them what to get upset about?
And when the 24/7/365 whinefest stops about GITMO they stop.
That and they never hold their leaders to the same standard as they hold other leaders.
Wheres the outrage?
"That and they never hold their leaders to the same standard as they hold other leaders."
I LOL'ed at this.
As for outrage from a liberal about Guantanamo, see my post above.
If it was bad then, it's still bad now.
Kerry showed you outrage. Not everyone has to take their talking points from a news network. I don't even watch any myself.
cnn/abc/nbc/cbs are all pro-war. All the time. They were when Bush was in, just as much as they are now.
Msnbc? Olbermann has railed against this issue a number of times...among other things he rails on Obama for.
And actually-since we are on this subject...where is YOUR support for Obama? You would think Repubs would be high-fiving him with shouts of USA USA USA.
Nope. nada. Silencio.
Must be because they only support the pres when he's a Republican....whether they agree with his policies or not.
Well, perhaps when he starts talking in terms of winning as opposed to how fast we can cut and run, then I'll support his "war effort"....
LOL. Afghanistan has been the graveyard of empires for 3000 years. We were never going to "win" in Afghanistan. The best we could ever hope for was getting out with a few shreds of dignity left intact...
I am so glad our generals and troops don't go into battle with that mindset.....
I wish they'd bothered to study history so they wouldn't have gone into an unwinnable war in the first place...
"Always with you it cannot be done" - Yoda
"I don't believe it."
"That is why you will fail."
I'm curious exactly what you propose to do. This isn't WW2 era Germany we're talking about here, this is a guerrilla war fought over extremely rugged terrain, and unlike the Indian Wars we have no way of cutting off our enemy's access to food and escape.
The Taliban simply melt away into the mountains until we move on, and then come back and start recruiting from the people who were left behind and now have grievances against American soldiers. We come back, destroy a few more homes, rack up a little more "collateral damage," and the whole process starts all over again.
Short of permanent occupation or bombing the whole country into glass, I really don't see what we can do to "win" this war.
Of course its winnable but our government has decided to listen to people like you and fight in a manner you find palatable.
Thats why we need to get rid of the democrats and RINO's.
Too bad it won't happen.
Yeah, nuke the Commie bastards. That'll learn'em.
Really? If it was winnable, why wasn't it "won" all those years that GWB repeatedly stated he was "listening to the generals on the ground?"
[Ah, the memories....]
Maybe he was listening to the Generals.
But he was still the one ultimately responsible, like the two other wartime Presidents (Johnson and Nixon) and the flaccid lump we have now he is afraid to kill people.
Its a good thing Roosevelt and Truman did what needed to be done.
You win wars by killing the enemy and blowing things up.
Collateral damage and public opinion should never be a factor in wartime decisions.
Ahhhh, the memories.
Sometimes, starting a war is just stupid, not to mention wrong. If only the son had listened to the father. But, I know, it makes you feel better to blame public opinion than to admit that some things cannot be solved with brute force.
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.
"Sometimes, starting a war is just stupid, not to mention wrong. If only the son had listened to the father. But, I know, it makes you feel better to blame public opinion than to admit that some things cannot be solved with brute force."
Did I miss something?
The Iraqi forces won?
What world are you living in?
I'm confused about Afghanistan. Obama said it's a war we HAVE to win. If that's true, then why don't we go full force to win it? If it's not true, why don't we leave? It's turning into another Viet Nam.
You're going under the assumption that Obama is actually a leader, a competent commander in chief, a strategist with an ounce of brains....
He out-stratigizes those dumbo elephants at every turn.
In fact, I can't wait to see what he has up his sleeve for the Season of Wither coming up
Yeah, he sure whooped em on the tax raise thing huh.
"I am being held hostage by the minority party in Congress, so I must surrender."
Thats some leader
Yeah, he's some political strategist....I guess that's why his poll numbers have sunk like the Titanic and his party got their heads handed to them in the latest elections....
You would rather he lie to you and say "mission accomplished"?
".where is YOUR support for Obama?"
It doesn't exist.
And it never will.
Whats missing in this thread so far is that the facility at Guantanamo was purpose built to circumvent the rule of law. The Bush admininstration built it there so that the detainees would not have the usual legal rights afforded everyone else.
This was even argued in the Supreme Court by the Bush admins lawyers who under direction argued that Gitmo Cuba was not subject to the US legal system. (Habeus Corpus for instance.) Fortunately the Supreme Court saw red on this one and said in effect that facilities in the US Govt control come under US Law
I have to go with the Justices on this one. First of all, Gitmo was necessary as a holding facility. However, it has become unconsciounable 'detaining' people for this long. Deal with them in a military court and be done with it.
Enter the Catch-22 of Gitmo. If you try them anywhere that they are allowed a defense, the torture issue will come out.
If you release them, they are radicalized now (even if they weren't before).
So Obama is forced into the Bush policies, whether he agrees or not. This HAS been the cause of protest from the left, as Jeff pointed out. This is a policy where Obama has been right of center - a big disappointment.
Chris pointed out - with documentation - how Congress has blocked Obama on closing Gitmo. It's not a promise Obama broke on purpose, he's been sabotaged by democrats.
The main reason you don't hear a lot though is not the liberal conspiracy of the media. (sigh) Obama stopped the torture at Gitmo - and that was fueling outrage from the left and right. It's the last issue where I saw integrity from McCain - sadly he caved under political pressure in the election.
The left has a rather bizarre idea of what constitutes torture.....
Many on the right have that same "bizarre" idea. Torture is not a left or right issue; it's a moral issue.
Indeed, but according to the Right, if it's done for the "right reasons," it's okay.
('Scuse me, I just threw up in my mouth a little.)
Now you understand my frustrations with liberals who talk about Taxes being good.
Theft is bad... .unless it's for the right reasons!...
Except taxation by an elected representative government, which has the express Constitutional power to tax*, is not theft. It's just taxation. Call it theft all you want, but unless the taxes in question are imposed by an un-elected government that doesn't have the express Constitutional power to tax, then it's not theft.
*Amendment XVI: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Ohhh, Jeff. Now his head will explode and the mess will be YOUR fault.
so, indeed, my earlier statement is accurate:
"theft is ok... unless it's for the "good" reasons".
The power can be in the constitution all it wants: theft is theft.
As proof that it's theft: the South didn't want to be taxed any more, and they were forced, through a horrifically bloody war, to not only NOT leave, but to also be the North's bi***. Thus the "taxation" is NOT voluntary, and the South was NOT properly represented in the *cough* "Union".
Taxes are theft, Jeff. Plain and simple.
No, your earlier statement is not accurate.
Taxes are theft when they're imposed by a dictator or monarch, without the consent of the governed.
The governed in the US have given the Congress the express power to tax their income, via the 16th amendment. If we've decided we don't like it, perhaps we should amend our Constitution, and then if the government tries to tax us it will be theft.
I mean, really, your argument about taxes being theft pretty much equates to "If I don't like a law, it's tyranny."
And you're right, the South was not properly represented in the Union. Many of the people were counted as 3/5ths of a person. An interesting thing: they weren't considered full people, and yet the Southern states insisted on counting them for the purposes of determining congressional seats.
Also, please let's not pretend that the South's secession was about anything besides the South's insistence that they should be allowed to continue enslaving (literally enslaving, not this figurative version of 'enslaving' that Right-wing folks like to bandy about) a large chunk of their population.
Check out the Declaration of Causes of Secession:
Georgia's second sentence: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Mississippi's second sentence: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
South Carolina's Declaration is more circumspect, spending the first several paragraphs on history rather than the reasons for their secession, but when they finally come to the point, they say, "For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution." This one is particularly funny, because it argues for States' Rights, but complains that some states are exercising their rights to end slavery within their borders, and not to help slaveowners from the South to re-enslave people who flee across their borders. Funny, right?
And Texas:"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
Interestingly, Texas fought for independence from Mexico because Mexico didn't allow slavery. In essence, "We fight for our God-given freedom to make other men slaves," say the Texians.
It was all about slavery. When it looked like the South was going to lose the war, then they started to talk about States' Rights and so on, to make their cause more palatable to the European powers that they hoped to get on their side. Toward the end, the South actually considered arming their slaves, but they lost the war before they could do so.
So yeah, let's not pretend that the South was all about high-minded ideals of liberty. They were all about wanting to keep enslaving people: the antithesis of liberty.
If you think that the Civil War was about nothing but slavery (slavery was obviously a big part of it), then you've not bothered to listen to the arguments of the South.
I have, and they all boil down to, We want to keep slaves, and others are trying to stop us.
"Our rights [to keep slaves] are being infringed."
"The northern states are hostile to our rights [to keep slaves]."
"We fight for liberty [so we have the liberty to enslave people]."
It's absolutely true that the South tried to bury the slave thing (especially late in the war, when they wanted allies who found slavery distasteful), but when you boil all the arguments down it comes to this: The South wanted to keep slaves, and the North wanted nobody to keep slaves. If the South hadn't kept slaves, the South probably never would have seceded.
Excellent question that is, of course, being ignored.
But then, have you noticed it's impossible to find anyone who voted for GWB anymore? Weird....
I'm sure there are many Republicans that are upset.
I'm not one of them.
"I'm not one of them."
So if you're not upset about Gitmo, why are you upset that others aren't upset about it?
(Assuming that they in fact aren't upset, that is.)
Just looking to score empty points?
I voted for him. I also voted for Clinton, Reagan, and Perot.
They're never gonna shut Gitmo.
Forever shall it remain the American Gulag that none care about.
don't you know? It's ok to torture people (but not dogs), so long as they are "suspected terrorists". Sure the term means absolutely nothing, but that never stopped a government hungry to throw dissenters into a camp without a key.
It shall forever remain as a testament to American hypocrisy and a warning to those who dare to actually DO something against tyranny.
All hail the American Gulag.
Very, very sad. The gulag, that is, and what it currently represents.
all they have to do is change what a "terrorist" is.
It isn't difficult. Look at the current definition:
"a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities"
Basically, all that says is "someone who is different from the main stream who generally incites fear to get their way".
So, if you ARE mainstream and you use fear, you are known as "the president".
But if you are NOT mainstream and you use fear, you are a "terrorist".
The "war on terrorism" was obviously chosen because of how vague the definition is.
I could easily be considered a terrorist by simply saying: "If we don't return to the Gold Standard and abolish the Federal Reserve System, we will see the crashing of the economy and the destruction of the dollar as we know it. It will be a miserable life. Return to Gold"
In this statement we see all of the aspects of terrorism: Political intentions, fear mongering, and an uncommon view of things (radical).
Wake up, Billy. Republicans are just as evil as Democrats.
I think this whole liberals versus conservatives thing that you have in America is a kind of security blanket that people cling to because to get rid of it would mean actually admitting that there isn't a whole lot of difference between your two mainstream political parties.
It's the same in Britain, only we dumped our security blanket after the mid-1990s, and replaced it with blanket apathy - more people probably vote on which Big Brother or X-Factor contestants should be given the push than vote at our elections.
Never said they weren't. However, one party does tend to be a bit more proactive in fighting the threat and the other seems hell bent on appeasement.....
"However, one party does pretend to be a bit more proactive in fighting the threat"
There, fixed it for you.
you can fight all the "threats" in the world.
But if you define "dissent" as a threat, then you have a dictatorship.
"a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities"
The definition does not say employs fear it says employs terror.
Among the definitions of terror you find this.
"violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands"
a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
Not the same..is it?
The first definition I saw when I typed in "define: Terror" was:
"panic: an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety"
"a person who inspires fear or dread; "he was the terror of the neighborhood""
"the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons); "he used terror to make them confess""
... so... ummm ... they kind of are synonyms.
George Orwell warned us of our leaders redefining words, and it seems that you are buying Bush's definition hook, line, and sinker.
Its not Bush's definition its Merriam-Webster's.
let's dun look at 'da whole def-i-ni-shyun that was dun given' by dem dar webster feller:
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3 : reign of terror
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror> " (emphasis added)
Now I reckin that if duh werd FEAR done be used for the main defintion of the ver'y peeple you dun be quotin', then I reckin' that it mus'be pretty much a synonym.
In fact, i migh' even go so far as to say dat it seems like you intentionally ignored duh firs'two defini-shyuns when you dun did responded to me!
And goin' even furder, I reckin that if we start callin' "fear" "terror", then, why, dem folk who done try to change the political spectrum by pointin' out cause'n'effect could easily be considered terrorists.
An' if we're fightin' sum war against a verb, why, i serpose that anyone who dun be called a terr'ist could be sub-jected to aICBM up their keester!
Boy howdy. Imagyun that! A whole ICBM'er up yer bum just fer sayin that our monetary policies be headed to-wards disaster!
Nice try, though.
You managed to define terror.
But this is what you said.
"Basically, all that says is "someone who is different from the main stream who generally incites fear to get their way".
Inciting fear and employing terror are two different things.
I await your next bit of wordsmanship.
no, they're really not.
terror is synonymous with fear, and using it for a means is terrorism.
2+2 does NOT equal 5, jim.
Whilst I agree with most of what you say on this thread I'm a bit puzzled by your reliance on the dictionary when it supports you but how you'll totally ignore it when it doesn't support you!
If you're going to make a claim, back it up with an example. I'll be waiting until then.
Oh yes oh master:-) What does government mean?
You simply asked me what "government" means. You didn't say that I defined it inaccurately. Please inform me how I defined it incorrectly.
Did I define it inaccurately? Did I use the term incorrectly?
You still have not provided an example of me "[relying] on the dictionary when it supports [me] but how [I'll] totally ignore it when it doesn't support [me]"
I~~'ll be waiting for that day to arrive, when i feel ali~ive, I'll be waiting for that day!
Tut tut- short term memory loss? This thread provides the example of you relying on the dictionary when it suits you.
Your insistence that government = state provides an example of you ignoring the dictionary.
OK, here we go. You actually bothered to give me a sort-of example where you think that I'm doing something wrong.
You are claiming that I am arguing that "the government" is synonymous with "the state".
Thank you for ACTUALLY providing a claim (albeit laced with insults) that I can ACTUALLY defend myself against. As opposed to me just randomly guessing what you mean, I can now ACTUALLY attempt to address your claim.
You're right, "the government" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government) doesn't actually need to be a State. But the first definition of "govern" via the Miriam-webster dictionary says (I only include the first definition because the definition of government and govern are quite long):
"1 a : to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in, b : to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy" [emphasis added]
Now let's look at the definition of "State". It is lengthy, and it includes the definitions of, for example "a state of readiness", so I will only put down a few:
"5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially one that is sovereign b : the political organization of such a body of people c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character <a police state> <the welfare state>
6 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country
7 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government <the fifty states> " (emphasis added)
As you can see, in "6", "7:A" and "5:A", there are obvious overlapping aspects between "state" and 'government/govern"
So if you wish to get mad at me for confusing the two, please also address your concerns to Merriam-Webster. Until then, I'll just assume that everyone is equally confused on the issue as I, and Webster, are.
Obviously the term government, in usually discussion, is understood to mean state.
Now, to address the issue with me "confusing government with state", we must ask ourselves what was my alternative to "state government"?
It was a voluntary, non-state government. The two are quite different. In our usual vernacular, Government means "forced upon by the will of the sovereign", whereas in a voluntary government, things would be a bit more like "you get this only if you're willing to pay for it/agree to the terms".
They are obviously different, and, without a dictionary at hand, most people hear the word "government" and think of "state".
Evan, I'm not American, Merriam-Webster is not even in the top five of dictionaries that I consult.
Not withstanding that, if government is hived off into private hands, it remains government, as you admit yourself.
What your argument boils down to is that you have a hatred of the state and anything is preferable to any sort of state intervention no matter how much freedom or free will must be given up to achieve control by big business.
Quotes on this forum thread alone:
“Tut tut- short term memory loss?”
“Oh yes oh master:-)”
!!! light hearted re-joiners!!
Tell me that is more offensive than typing in caps.
How about demanding that people read articles and then not even having the decency to acknowledge the provided commentary!
How about calling commentary stupid and silly!
Evan, take a close look at your interaction before complaining about others. Before you accuse others of being rude or offensive make very sure that you are not being rude or offensive.
"I knew why I had been arrested: it was because I am a Muslim. I was just the latest victim of the hostility born the moment when the planes flew into the twin towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001."
More to come this "new" Congress. King is planning Muslim hearings, ala McCarthy.
What on Earth are you talking about?
I mean, yeah, I get that a lot of mainstream Americans equate Muslim with terrorism (sad, but true), but this is the first I've heard about anybody in congress holding 'Muslim hearings.'
You got linkage? 'Cos I prefer to get upset about stuff that's actually happening.
Rep. Peter King to hold hearings on 'radicalization' of American Muslims, critics fear witchhunt
BY DAVE GOLDINER
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Sunday, December 19th 2010, 9:02 PM
Miller for News, Elisa
Rep/ Peter King said he's been accused of being a bigot, but will hold the hearings anyway.
"Rep. Peter King said Sunday he'll hold hearings on the "radicalization of the American Muslim community" - but some critics fear an anti-Islamic witchhunt.
King (R-L.I.) said a Congressional probe is needed because Al Qaeda has increasingly targeted Muslims living legally in the United States as potential terror recruits.
"We want to assess the extent of the radicalization of the Muslim community," he said. "It's clear to me there has not been sufficient cooperation."
"With Al Qaeda trying to recruit from within their community, it's important that they cooperate," said King, who will be chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security in the new Republican-controlled Congress. King's call drew fire from Muslim groups, who said they fear the hearings will only fuel bigotry and hatred.
"We're concerned that it'll become a new McCarthy-type hearing," said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
King said he's already been accused of being a bigot and worse - but insists he won't change course. The hearings could take place in late February and might include experts on Islam as well as law enforcement and Muslim leaders, if they accept his invitation.
"The overwhelming majority of Muslims are outstanding citizens," King said.
Since the Sept. 11 terror attacks, King was disappointed that some Muslims refused to accept Al Qaeda was responsible."
Here's a little surprise for King....I don't accept Al Queda as responsible either. In fact, Al Queda is allegedly a CIA operation, and translates as "Little Toilet".
In fact, I think Mr. King and his like-minded cronies, have totally obscured the REAL perps of 9/11, and are using this possible "witch hunt" to do so even further.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the truth is that mutants are very real, and that they are among us. We must know who they are, and above all, what they can do!"
(Fictional) Senator Robert Kelly
Okay, Lovemychris, I'll bite.
Who are the 'real' perps of 9/11?
(This should be good...)
If you google "9/11", you will get 130,000,000 pages of info.
Google "who did 9/11 attacks?", and you get 67,000,000.
Information and opinion a'plenty regarding 9/11. I have taken the time to research it, as I never believed that fairy tale in the first place.
I wouldn't go so far as to insinuate that you are stupid or crazy, as you do me, but suffice it to say, if you believe them, there isn't much I can say to you that will change your mind.
And, having gvt investigating a group of people on the assumption that they are guilty of actions against the United States is like re-living history. Japanese Americans, Alleged Communists, and now Muslims.
Meanwhile, who really has the ability to over-ride "the biggest miltary and technically advanced power on earth"?
Why don't we just start with "Who told NORAD to stand down that morning?" Was it Muslims in a cave?
You can believe that if you wish.
The real test will be when they put a US citizen there, and leave him there. Assuming anyone ever finds out about it...
"October 9, 2005
An American in chains
James Yee entered Guantanamo as a patriotic US officer and Muslim chaplain. He ended up in shackles, branded a spy. This is his disturbing story..."
Here's another U.S. patriotic officer.
This is his disturbing story.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti … id=7102805
You got a link to that story, lovemychris?
Jim, what does Major Hasan's story have to do with Guantanamo prisoners?
Just google the title, there's your story.
He became a prisoner at Gitmo.
It is NOT the decent,law-abiding just your average nice little prison some Americans portray it to be.
But, by perpetuating this "oh, it's not so bad" image----do you people really forget all that went on?
Did you not see the pictures, read the accounts?
Worse than big rats, by 1 million times. Believe it.
Obama already called for the murdering of a US citizen "enemy combatant".
Sorry it's a bad link, but this is pretty mainstream knowledge at this point.
http://www.disclose.tv/forum/confirmed- … 19842.html
I would find a better link, but I'm going out soon.
Pretty Panther....to reinforce your point, I will use a much older source..
From a Soviet named Manuilsky
"Discussion of the Report on the Situation in China"
November 28, 1926
And I quote:
"I should like to direct the attention of the whole Comintern upon the Pacific problem as a whole...upon the conflicts which develop where the paths of the three continents, America, Asia, and Europe, cross one another. Three imperialist powers stand face to face there: the United States of North America, Japan and Great Britain.
The armed clash which may break out there in the future will be of unimaginable violence and serious consequences...we may witness a war which, with respect to the grimness of the extent of its losses, will put the great imperialist war of 1914-1918 (now called World War 1) in the shade."
If any American is aware of the history of this nation (the U.S.A.) towards Cuba (long before 1898 or 1959), I cannot imagine how any military installations in Cuba can be tolerable...
The originator of this thread loves to use the typecast "liberal" like a brushstroke a mile long... Instead of brandying about epithets, how about discussing tangible ideas?
So why is it up to liberals? Conservatives forgot how to talk? It's a two way street.
apprently so called Conservatives think it is OK for people to be tortured, as they are the ones who wanted this place to start with. It's a discrace to this country, but Obama cannot close it because of the Conservatives who are blocking it.
He can issue an executive order and its done.
Quit blaming Republicans or Conservatives.
Your guy said he would close it and hasn't.
He won't close it because Bush was right.
"He won't close it because Bush was right."
No, Bush was a moron who never should have opened it, but now it's someone else's problem, just like the wars, the Dept of Homeland Security and the devastated economy.
At least the economy is starting to recover.
"He won't close it because Bush was right"
Yeah, torturing people and refusing to give them a fair trial. That's "right".
Give me a break.
Gitmo is a testament to how divorced we've become from our nations liberty-driven origins.
It won't close because the leaders need a place to point to whenever there's "just a little bit too much dissent".
I've heard of all the cases of U.S. citizens being plucked from the streets for their "dissent".
GITMO is full of Bush protesters, its horrendous.
Wait, uhhhhhh, sorry that was a movie I saw.
Dictators don't come to power over night.
Soooooo, who will be the dictator?
You obviously have inside information.
History is FULL of democracy-esque governments succumbing to dictators and tyrants.
Type "the french revolution" into a search engine.
"Alexander the Great"
I wouldn't doubt it if each of those government that succumbed had given up the gold standard, but that's wild speculation at this point.
Someone is quoted as saying Democracy inevitably LEADS to tyranny!
That's why it all went downhill when the Capitalists veered us away from being a Republic, and into mob rule---which they can control with their money.
that's not at all what that quote means.
Democracy leads to tyranny NOT because of companies, but because you're giving people the power of a military and monopoly control of the legal system.
Privatizing things would decrease centralization more.
And just a quick reminder, the US is a Republic (not that you claimed it was a democracy, I just always like to remind people).
Modern conservatives have no problems with things like torture and indefinite detention without trial until they think they might be used against themselves.
Two conservatives decided to try it for themselves to prove it wasn't torture. Guess what they decided? And they knew that they were completely safe and would not ultimately be harmed. Imagine what it is like for a person who doesn't know that.
Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture
There is an obvious necessity to the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and a legitimate one. On the campaign trail Shining Handsome Obama did, as candidates are wont to do, expressed a position that garnered support from those who would have GWB up on war crimes charges in the Hague. It was as much red meat to the liberal as welfare queen was to the Republicans in the '70s.
If we were following the letter of the Geneva Conventions there would be no prisoners in Gitmo, they would have been summarily executed on the battlefield. The conditions of the prison, itself, are a model for keeping war prisoners. Culturally sensitive training and conduct rules for the guards; halal diet, Korans, prayer times - all observed and respected by the captors.
In return, those serving at Gitmo get abused from within and without, even by their own C-in-C. Perhaps that is why liberals no longer are angry over Gitmo. The one running it is one of them and is polishing his skills for that step radicals eagerly anticipate.
"By the time I got to Guantanamo, Camp X-Ray was too small for the number of prisoners coming in. When I saw its remains I couldn’t believe that humans were once held here. It looked like a cattle yard. There were hundreds of cages in rows. The only protection from the blistering sun was a tin roof. Dozens of enormous rodents crawled throughout the camp. I was told that these were banana rats and would attack if provoked."
October 9, 2005
An American in chains
"If we were following the letter of the Geneva Conventions" then the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay would be treated as POWs, be allowed visits from the International Red Cross (or Red Crescent, as the case may be), etc, etc, etc.
But they're not being called POWs. They're not being called accused criminals. They're being held indefinitely, extrajudicially, and IMO, illegally.
"Perhaps that is why liberals no longer are angry over Gitmo."
The premise of the above, that liberals are no longer upset about Gitmo, is utterly false.
Also, LMC, what the heck is a banana rat? I know about the Brown Rat, and the Norway Rat, but I've never heard of the Banana Rat.
Yeah, I see all the hand ringing AFTER I start a thread on why no one is talking about GITMO anymore.
Then in order to not look like hypocrites the usual suspects run to it.
Once again the liberal hypocrisy is in plain sight.
Why aren't Liberals still upset about Gitmo?
--We are still upset about Gitmo.
Well then why didn't you say anything on the Hubpages forums about it?
Since you didn't say anything about it on the Hubpages forums, you must not be upset about it anymore.
--Um, that doesn't make much sense...
Yes it does! Ha ha, got you! Nyeah!
It's too bad, Jim, that you live in such a void.....
To much "Drrrrr" and not enough reading....
Perhaps you can raise yourself from that infantile dribble of yours and you can research rendition.....
Beyond Gitmo, who has been snatched up by American agents, and flown from Spain to Germany and beyond for illegal, unwarranted persecution...
I need not name names here...jump to the Googles and see for yourself...
As I said in my earlier post in this thread, and as you ignored, the occupation of Gitmo itself is criminal, at least in my book...
Looking at the history of Americans in Cuba alone, going back to the opening decades of the nineteenth century (1800's for you Jim...I want to make sure you don't get lost in the words), there are many American citizens who would have been classified as terrorists...and who, by today's standards, should have been locked up in the Gitmo "terrorist" prison....
But, the "conservatives" also have a tendency of turning off their brains when it comes to understanding history....
So then they make threads like this one..... Ridiculous, minescule, simple-minded threads exactly like this one....
Read up.... But Operation Northwoods only scratches the surface....
Jim believe all liberals get their talking points from TV news, even when given lots of proof that just because something is not mentioned on TV does not mean people are not interested in it. That means he believe that if it's not mentioned on TV that it is not important enough for people to get upset about. Make sense? Of course not
I figure it's because everything mentioned on Fox news is picked up on this forum and discussed by certain people who don't look into any of the background, then it must mean liberals are the same. Rarely do any conservatives on here bring up anything on their own that has not been mentioned on Fox.
Why isn't it mentioned? Why waste your time trying to debate anything seriously on this forum?
Evan....as for the South being the North's b$%*h, Southern politicians and their power had dominated the nation until the Civil War....
Secondly, the Civil War, and secession for that matter, was not fought over taxation.... Once the Kansas-Nebraska Act failed....war was inevitable...
Taxes are not theft, unless they are passed without the consent of the governed...
And......to protect the Constitution I will gladly pay taxes...and so will most every decent American..
As for tax dollar diversions to pay for kiddy sex parties in Afghanistan...torture of innocents at the hands of the CIA, and other travesties of justice...that is another matter...
Unless high officials are made to pay for crimes they commit (in my book, starting with Dick Cheney and George Bush), there will be no way to set any sort of ethical standards...
"Unless high officials are made to pay for crimes they commit (in my book, starting with Dick Cheney and George Bush), there will be no way to set any sort of ethical standards..."
I second that so strongly, I am standing and saluting you.
TRUE AMERICAN, imo.
We USED to stand for something, not anymore.
And these "new" Repubs coming in here and "Getting" Obama is not going to cut it!
my point wasn't to say that the Civil war was fought over taxation, my point was to say that these taxes are NOT voluntary and that they are NOT established by "elected representatives".
If you can't leave your government, then how can that government be yours?
Yeah, it's really hard to get past the Canada Wall. You might get shot trying to escape from the US.
No, wait, I'm thinking of someplace else.
You can leave your government any time you want to.
But it sounds like you don't really want to leave. You seem to want not to be subject to the laws of the USA, while continuing to live within its borders, and benefit from its protection and its infrastructure. How it that fair?
"You seem to want not to be subject to the laws of the USA, while continuing to live within its borders, and benefit from its protection and its infrastructure."
You forgot to mention - "and not be obliged to PAY for the benefits of living in those protected borders, and not PAY your share to enjoy the benefits of civil liberties and personal comforts which are the RESULT of the infrastructure which would not exist without the taxation you denounce."
I was lumping that in with "not be subject to its laws," but fair point.
You are a better writer than I am (no secret) but I just wanted to hit the 'taxes are theft' meme that's central to the worldview of our friend.
The benefits of modern society that we all agree on are not free. IMO, the benefits would be even further removed - or totally unavailable - under the system of pure libertarianism.
Economic and political anarchy has existed plenty of times around the globe, and that's NEVER produced the utopia Alan believes in with all his heart. Pure capitalism has existed in plenty of states - and it's always resulted in a diminished standard of living for all but a few.
In what country or era has ANY government provided for the people they were ordained to govern WITHOUT compulsory taxes? Has that civilization, with the modern perks of civilization, EVER existed without compulsory taxation? How do you provide public roads, public schools, environmental protections? How do you prevent exploitation in the workplace, unsafe working conditions? Evan would give ALL authority in ALL areas to rich people. We can trust them.
On the second point.. you can leave your government. The process is called renouncing your citizenship. If you want to do it as a State or group of states, the Constitution provides for a Constitutional Convention under which secession might be legal. Evan would validate the authority of a State to renege on participation in the union of states. The Confederacy quit by an act of force, firing on Fort Sumpter. So the revolution by force is justified, but responding to the revolution with force is NOT?????!!
Evan, if you hate modern society so much, of course you can leave!
Evan, just to side track one minute, you claim that my posts are laced with insults! I find that claim objectionable and false.
I could claim that your tone and manner is extremely offensive but mostly choose not to, accepting that cultural differences can make normal intercourse seem abnormal.
Ron, you make a good point. I recently read a book called Twelve by Twelve: A One-Room Cabin Off the Grid and Beyond the American Dream. It's by this fellow who spends a year living in a 12' x 12' cabin with no running water. He's looking after it for a friend, a surgeon who works only until she earns (I think) $14K in a given year, and then stops. This way, she doesn't have to pay income tax to support stuff she doesn't like. If you don't like taxes, you could do that.
I wouldn't; I don't think I'd like it. But the option is there.
Lol, you guys sound just like raging conservatives when it comes to just about any discussion about anything!!
"If you hate Am'rrka so much, the GIDDOUT!!!"
No thanks: all the options are the same, for the most part. I'm merely trying to make this option, America, less tyrannical.
And PLEASE stop this "without government we wouldn't have running water" nonsense. It's just nonsense.
Thanks for the ready example, that is offensive.
Fine Evan. Puhleeeeeese list the countries with running water, a sophisticated road system, plentiful energy, public schools, public libraries, unfettered access to global information - and no government.
Not fair? Then list the sophisticated countries with very weak governments.
No? The list the countries with weak/no governments and the plan/process that free enterprise will provide even BASIC services....
"The Seasteading Institute projects that in 2014, the seasteading population will exceed 150 individuals."
So the upshot is that in 4 years, there will be 150 individuals living on a drifting barge, out of any national jurisdiction. We have had that many people living on the Space Station (not at the same time) but definitely out of any national jurisdiction. I wouldn't say it proves libertarianism since the weightless station is still supported by governments.
The barges that are the product of a few libertarian donors are going to be just as dependent on external support - those $ made in countries with governments and taxes. Put together a barge or barges with say over 150,000 people, financially self-sufficient with no government and no taxes, and I WILL be impressed. At the moment, I am not.
So the Seasteading Institute isn't some form of government?
Wow, I'd never heard of the SI before - thanks for posting the link Evan.
I would bet money that a set up like SI is bound to develop its own de facto form of government with a court system, taxation, police and the like. I would love to hear from anyone who actually lives there and can tell us more.
You remind me of a friend of mine who quotes Ayn Rand and sings the praises of libertarianism while living with her parents and working for the government. Her life does not match her philosophy and she doesn't see the irony at all.
While I do not expect that everyone will fully live their ideals, if they are going to vigorously promote a specific way of living, then they ought to at least be making an effort to live that way themselves. If they don't, then their rhetoric is entirely empty and meaningless.
It's easy to sing the praises of anarchy while living the cushy life provided by the taxes we all pay.
You've already checked out; it wasn't my idea. The only place you will find the anarchist's utopia you dream of is in a tiny one room shack.
Evan, you're the one who said you wanted to be able to leave the government. I just pointed out that you can do so if you want to, and nobody will stop you.
I don't want you to leave.
But at the same time, I'm not buying your tax = theft schtick. Congress has the express Constitutional power to levy taxes. What's more, they have the express Constitutional power to tax the citizens' income directly. Who gave Congress that power? We, The People did.
If you don't think Congress should have the power to tax, fine, start a movement to amend the Constitution to that effect. But taxes aren't theft. Say it all you like; it won't make it so.
Seriously, do you expect that we should have a Constitutional Convention every time a Citizen is born, so we make sure that each citizen is fully on board?
Careful Jeff you are sounding a little conservative. Perhaps you should throw something in there about wealth redistribution or the courts, just to cover your flank.
In case anyone needs proof:
"Darryl Issa will begin to peel back the veil on the Obeama machine starting in January, 2011, when the GOP takes over the House and he takes over the oversight committee. Some of the issues he will look at include the bailouts, the stimulus, EPA overreach, the GM buyout, and more."
by Deforest3 years ago
How come my president is prompter to believe takfiri dogs/criminals versus Assad? Any interests involved? Your opinion. I've noticed that not many people are concerned on the subject. Fear of a potential retaliation...
by Mike Russo2 months ago
Isn't interesting at the same time Jeff Sessions has said that he talked to Russia, Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping him? And Trump has no evidence to support his claims. I believe this is another one...
by Toni Northern4 years ago
President Obama is determined to close Guantanamo Bay. People were angry about it, tweeting he should've been closed it. I tweeted that the President isn't a king here, he can't decree Guantanamo Bay closed etc... He...
by crankalicious3 months ago
President Trump has stated that he found out former President Obama wiretapped him and has evidence to prove it. He has called for Congress to investigate.Question: Why would President Trump ask Congress to investigate...
by Dennis L. Page3 years ago
When George Bush was president the United States experienced the horrific attacks of 09/11. We were all misled into a war with Iraq and then we went to war in Afghanistan. He pushed to privatize Social Security. Bush...
by LucidDreams4 years ago
I am not saying ALL Republicans are, I am just wondering why anyone would actually stay with a party that is clearly not on the same page as most of America? Most (not all) but most who are die hard right Republicans...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.