moneymakers Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 His proposal to cut the capital gains tax for small business This will never happen. Does the phrase blowing smoke mean anything. The guy is clueless. We have a better shot at recover if he does absolutely nothing. Military is doomed if Obama gets his way and dont ask dont tell is repealed. Check your history books people. Downfall of many a civilization. He will regret big time his spanking of the Supreme Court in public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 His proposal to cut the capital gains tax for small business This will never happen. Does the phrase blowing smoke mean anything. The guy is clueless. We have a better shot at recover if he does absolutely nothing. Military is doomed if Obama gets his way and dont ask dont tell is repealed. Check your history books people. Downfall of many a civilization. He will regret big time his spanking of the Supreme Court in public. You had to wait until morning to get the talking points to regurgitate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Falsley accused of committing a crime? The underpants guy is hardly being falsely accused. He tried to committ a terrorist act. I'll worry about his tourism dollars later. The underpants dude was guilty...but Perch insinuated that all foreigners should not be afforded basic Constitutional rights....even though the Constitution that he so strongly supports dictates that they should. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Weren't Confederate Soldiers tried in military courts rather than federal courts? Thus, not given the same rights to trial as regualr US citizens? The US was offically at war against a separatist govt and m,ilitary, hence military trials. There is no defense for individuals not getting rights . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Thats interesting....so if a foreigner visitng our country is falsely accused of committing a crime, law enforement should be allowed to do whatever they want to the individual beause he is not a citizen? That should do wonders for tourism Falsley accused of committing a crime? The underpants guy is hardly being falsely accused. He tried to committ a terrorist act. I'll worry about his tourism dollars later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Falsley accused of committing a crime? The underpants guy is hardly being falsely accused. He tried to committ a terrorist act. I'll worry about his tourism dollars later. I doubt he was calling the underpants bandit innocent. And that guy should still get his day in court, just like any other common dirtbag criminal. Dont make him into more than he is and make him a martyr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 I doubt he was calling the underpants bandit innocent. And that guy should still get his day in court, just like any other common dirtbag criminal. Dont make him into more than he is and make him a martyr. Some facts for you.... Fact Check: How State of Union Compares With Reality A look at some of Obama's claims in the State of the Union and how they compare with the facts WASHINGTON -- President Obama, who once considered government spending freezes a hatchet job, told Americans on Wednesday it's now part of his solution to the exploding deficit. He didn't explain what had changed. His State of the Union speech skipped over a variety of complex realities in laying out a "common-sense" call to action. A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts: OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't." THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the deficit -- and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along. Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year to year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's. ------ OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans." THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted -- a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success. ------ OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said: "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan." THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage -- the majority of Americans under age 65 -- in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee g point of contention for the president. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error. The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million "compared with what those values would have been otherwise." It said the ranges "reflect the uncertainty of such estimates." And it added: "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package." ------ OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve." THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign -- to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon. ------ OBAMA: "We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year." THE FACTS: Identifying savings is far from achieving them. If the past is any guide, little will result from this exercise because Congress routinely rejects the White House's suggested spending cuts. ------ OBAMA: "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades." THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions. ------ OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008." THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 (edited) I doubt he was calling the underpants bandit innocent. And that guy should still get his day in court, just like any other common dirtbag criminal. Dont make him into more than he is and make him a martyr. who gives a fruck about his status among his peers!!! we should use the tactic that gets the most info from him. thats military. now were getting pc for our terrorists??? come on! Edited January 28, 2010 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't." THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the deficit -- and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along. Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year to year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's. [b]Nothing in "the facts" disproved anything Obama said in the previous quoted passage. . .Did YOU write this?? Who cares if he is a convert? Doesnt that mean he is listening to what Americans want? What a novel approach! ------[/b] OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans." THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted -- a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success. So Congress is blocking progress again. What a surprise. The right because he isnt one of them, and certain Dems who are so far left they are afraid that certain pet projects of their wouldnt get increases. It takes courage to oppose your party and what they want to do i order to do what is right . . . . you should take notes. ------ OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said: "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan." THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage -- the majority of Americans under age 65 -- in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee g point of contention for the president. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error. The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million "compared with what those values would have been otherwise." It said the ranges "reflect the uncertainty of such estimates." And it added: "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package." Obama talks about health care . . . "the facts" talk about jobs being saved. This is like a child that cant focus on teh discussion at hand because they are so focused on what THEY want to say they dont listen . . . ------ OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve." THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign -- to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon. They are right on the CSPAN stuff. This might be the only passage worth discussing in this whole article. But do you REALLY want to start up broken campaign promises by elected officials once they are in office? ------ OBAMA: "We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year." THE FACTS: Identifying savings is far from achieving them. If the past is any guide, little will result from this exercise because Congress routinely rejects the White House's suggested spending cuts. So again . . it is Congress's fault. But by all means . . . still blame big bad Obama . . . ------ OBAMA: "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades." THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions. And??? The facts seem to grugingly agree with Obama here . . ------ OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008." THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program. Maybe because Obama is actually going after`terrorists and not Iraqis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Some facts for you.... Fact Check: How State of Union Compares With Reality A look at some of Obama's claims in the State of the Union and how they compare with the facts WASHINGTON -- President Obama, who once considered government spending freezes a hatchet job, told Americans on Wednesday it's now part of his solution to the exploding deficit. He didn't explain what had changed. His State of the Union speech skipped over a variety of complex realities in laying out a "common-sense" call to action. A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts: OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't." THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the deficit -- and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along. Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year to year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's. ------ OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans." THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted -- a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success. ------ OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said: "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan." THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage -- the majority of Americans under age 65 -- in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee g point of contention for the president. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error. The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million "compared with what those values would have been otherwise." It said the ranges "reflect the uncertainty of such estimates." And it added: "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package." ------ OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve." THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign -- to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon. ------ OBAMA: "We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year." THE FACTS: Identifying savings is far from achieving them. If the past is any guide, little will result from this exercise because Congress routinely rejects the White House's suggested spending cuts. ------ OBAMA: "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades." THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions. ------ OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008." THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/27...mpares-reality/ From FoxNews... nice work on trying to hide where your info came from, and worse, making it appear that it came from a non-partisan group like factcheck.org. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 who gives a fruck about his status among his peers!!! we should use the tactic that gets the most info from him. thats military. now were getting pc for our terrorists??? come on! Yep. Cause they always give the top secret information to suicide bombers. They tend to be the brightest and most important members of any organization. Do you want him to be a source of inspiration or a source of failure and shame? terrorism requires high profile press coverage to acheive its goals. By all means . . lets grab every Afghan that throws a rock at US forces and torture them for info. What a brilliant idea. Thats not military, thats just stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/27...mpares-reality/ From FoxNews... nice work on trying to hide where your info came from, and worse, making it appear that it came from a non-partisan group like factcheck.org. No surprise there . . . Zeke tends to be a one trick pony . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 (edited) Yep. Cause they always give the top secret information to suicide bombers. They tend to be the brightest and most important members of any organization. Do you want him to be a source of inspiration or a source of failure and shame? terrorism requires high profile press coverage to acheive its goals. By all means . . lets grab every Afghan that throws a rock at US forces and torture them for info. What a brilliant idea. Thats not military, thats just stupid. high profile...........public court in nyc or military tribunal in nw illinois? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. and your afghan rock thrower comment is just dumb. Edited January 28, 2010 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 high profile...........public court in nyc or military tribunal in nw illinois? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. and your afghan rock thrower comment is just dumb. he is a Nigerian citizen . . . have we declared war against Nigeria? You are focusing on alll the wrong things here . . the gap in intellegence and analysis along with security procedures should be the focus, not where he gets to go to prison . . . . but by all means, bluster away . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 high profile...........public court in nyc or military tribunal in nw illinois? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. and your afghan rock thrower comment is just dumb. here is some info . . . A criminal trial does not necessarily interfere with the collection of information and can have long term benefits. "Trying him in a civilian instead of a military court in my view is basically a victory for the rule of law," said Alan Vinegrad, who is also a former New York federal prosecutor. "Basically in that way we are telling him and the world that even in prosecuting terrorists we are going to follow the rule of the law, we aren't going to advocate our principles just to reach the right result." Vinegrad said a defense lawyer can even be helpful to the goverrnment. "In the beginning a defense lawyer is probably going to tell their client not to talk until the defense lawyer knows what the case is about, but very often defense lawyers can be the instrument to bring about cooperation from their client which helps not only their client but also the government. That happens all the time," he said. Former FBI agent and terrorism specialist Jack Cloonan agreed with Vinegrad. "We've only had three military trials of terrorists, but since 9/11 we've had over 200 terrorists convicted in criminal court. We know this system has worked and been tested. Why roll the dice?" Cloonan told ABC News' Law and Justice Unit. Those convictions include Richard Reid, the shoe bomber who tried to blow up a plane with explosives hidden in the soles of his shoes, and 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui. Since he's only 23, Abdulmutallab may be willing to make a plea that would get him out of prison in about 20 years in exchange for information. "Once they cross that bridge, they can't shut up," said Cloonan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 (edited) he is a Nigerian citizen . . . have we declared war against Nigeria? You are focusing on alll the wrong things here . . the gap in intellegence and analysis along with security procedures should be the focus, not where he gets to go to prison . . . . but by all means, bluster away . lol...good rebuttal. intellegence? and part of intelligence is to get as much info from him that we can. where was he trained, who helped him, etc. not so he can lawyer up. "In the beginning a defense lawyer is probably going to tell their client not to talk until the defense lawyer knows what the case is about, but very often defense lawyers can be the instrument to bring about cooperation from their client which helps not only their client but also the government. That happens all the time," he said. Edited January 28, 2010 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 His proposal to cut the capital gains tax for small business This will never happen. Does the phrase blowing smoke mean anything. The guy is clueless. We have a better shot at recover if he does absolutely nothing. Military is doomed if Obama gets his way and dont ask dont tell is repealed. Check your history books people. Downfall of many a civilization. He will regret big time his spanking of the Supreme Court in public. The gays in the military brought down Rome and stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 lol...good rebuttal. intellegence? and part of intelligence is to get as much info from him that we can. where was he trained, who helped him, etc. not so he can lawyer up. Yeah . . like when our intelligence community was WARNED about him, but didnt bar him from getting on a plane to the US?? the guy tried to blow up his balls . . and failed. Yep, lets learn about who taught this criminal mastermind everything he knows . . . He is a throwaway, nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 The gays in the military brought down Rome and stuff? lol....yea i dont get that one. i dont give a fruck who is in the foxhole next to me. if you can shoot and are a good soldier, i dont care how u get your rocks off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 The gays in the military brought down Rome and stuff? Oh, don't start Cap'n. It's like feeding a psychopath Crystal Meth. It's fun to watch for the first couple of minutes but then you have to deal with all the crazy being let loose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 Yeah . . like when our intelligence community was WARNED about him, but didnt bar him from getting on a plane to the US?? the guy tried to blow up his balls . . and failed. Yep, lets learn about who taught this criminal mastermind everything he knows . . . He is a throwaway, nothing more. you honestly think he has no useful info? and i agree with that intelligence failure, but thats a whole different topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 If you catch a terrorist in the act, i have no problem taking away any and all of his/her rights. Again, determine if you can get any info from them and then bullet in the head. Simple as that. Which really makes us no better than them. Weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 Which really makes us no better than them. Weak. which is crazy imo. i dont care about perception, i want to keep people alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 you honestly think he has no useful info? and i agree with that intelligence failure, but thats a whole different topic. yes I doubt he has anything of value. I also echo ben Franklin (and I believe Big Johns sigline) here. You advocate a very slippery slope here . . havent we compromised enough in the patriot Act (supported by Dem and Repub administrations) already? Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 which is crazy imo. i dont care about perception, i want to keep people alive. Perception aka our constitution is one of the only differences we have . .why violate it more than we already have in the last 9 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.