Close Gitmo?
-
...That gasoline was a lot more than 250 a gallon? Wha? I suspect I know what point you're trying to make (acolyte, blah, blah - we've been over this, to no avail) even though I have no idea what you're talking about.
But brother, retreating from your dumb partisan whiff after being corrected on reality is a funny time to accuse me of partisanship. Especially when you've realized that my point is valid and yours isn't. If pointing out reality is partisan, and being annoyed by your reflexive anti-Obama stupidity is too much, then hey, guess you got me. Should probably tell you something that this is your fall back position after losing on points. "Hey, man. Quit defending your boy!"
Eesh.
Also, I didn't blame Bush for gas prices during the Bush years. Nor do I credit Obama when they dip. Because they have almost nothing to do with the President. If someone wanted to praise Obama for gas prices now, I'd be happy to tell them its unwarranted.
As you know, I want gas prices to go up.
-
I suspect you're pretending to be dim to make a point but never mind that. Think really hard... Remember that Newt Gingrich said he had a plan to bring gasoline down to 250 a gallon! So let's say he won the election okay? Do you think it would be valid or not valid to bring up the fact that that was probably a bullshit promise? I'm not even saying Obama's promise was that much bullshit because, as we've discussed, a lot of those on the left were up in arms about it. I just said it was made in ignorance. And it was whether or not you think it should have been done then or should have been done yesterday.
that's all there is to it.
WSS
-
Haha. Yes, assume I'm acting nefariously! Because I'm up to no good. Can't trust dem libruls!
You know one way to ensure that I'll know what you're talking about? When you mean "$2.50 a gallon" write "$2.50 a gallon." Not "250 a gallon."
There. Not hard.
From now on you can assume when I say "I'm not following you" or "I have no idea what you're talking about" it's because I'm reading what you wrote and ...I don't know what you're talking about. Deal?
Yes, now I remember Newt's ridiculous pledge. And your analogy doesn't work. One is a laughable and impossible campaign pander that no one took seriously. The other is not all of those things. Resetting interrogation guidelines and the judicial process for detainees, in case you haven't noticed, has been a priority of the administration. (Check how they just handled the Boston suspects, while everyone on the right screamed "enemy combatant.") Closing Gitmo is one part of that. And now he's going to push for that part again, and likely fail again.
It's nothing like Newt Gingrich's last gasp campaign brainfart.
Also, you don't seem to think that it's ever worth it to take a stand on an issue even when the likelihood is that you aren't going to get the votes to pass what you want, and that doing this is tantamount to ignorance. I don't agree with that either. At all.
-
I think we should keep Gitmo open despite heck and the rest of the left's causing the "trouble".
20 percent of those release at Gitmo, go back to terrorism.
Don't be stupid on the subject Obamao. eh...too late again.
Instead of torture, they should just let them starve themselves to death.
If they have to force them ...feed them bacon, and ham. and dirt. and saltwater.
-
so you were dumbfounded by saying 250 a gallon instead of typing out the dollar sign and the decimal point?
even when I used the word gasoline, and we were talking about campaign promises, and I even used the name Newt Gingrich?
I guess I gave you credit for being a little smarter, my bad.
and now you want to drag out this transparent dodge because you fucked up?
I think there's a heck translation in there somewhere. Hopefully the work you are doing is better quality than this.
-
and back to your spin.
yes indeed I think it's perfectly valid for a candidate to take a stand on an issue that he feels strongly about. Even if it is one I disagree with. But that's not what he did. He made a promise.
of course neither one of us think he was qualified to make such a promise since he didn't really understand what is involved.
he surely had some advisors with enough experience to tell him that closing Guantanamo Bay was a long shot at best, don't you think?
wouldn't you expect that from a Republican candidate?
WSS
-
Hey one more glitch.
did you just quip that you wanted gas prices to go up, pretending that you really don't?
are you on the record as saying that you now don't believe higher gas prices are good for the environment because they would curtail use of fossil fuels? It seems to me that was one of the ideas of the administration.
did you disagree then or do you disagree now or are you just talking out your ass?
WSS
-
so you were dumbfounded by saying 250 a gallon instead of typing out the dollar sign and the decimal point?
even when I used the word gasoline, and we were talking about campaign promises, and I even used the name Newt Gingrich?
I guess I gave you credit for being a little smarter, my bad.
and now you want to drag out this transparent dodge because you fucked up?
I think there's a heck translation in there somewhere. Hopefully the work you are doing is better quality than this.
so you were dumbfounded by saying 250 a gallon instead of typing out the dollar sign and the decimal point?
even when I used the word gasoline, and we were talking about campaign promises, and I even used the name Newt Gingrich?
Yep. Didn't know what you were talking about. I thought you were talking about some carbon tax thing to make gas prices go through the roof or something.
-
and back to your spin.
yes indeed I think it's perfectly valid for a candidate to take a stand on an issue that he feels strongly about. Even if it is one I disagree with. But that's not what he did. He made a promise.
of course neither one of us think he was qualified to make such a promise since he didn't really understand what is involved.
he surely had some advisors with enough experience to tell him that closing Guantanamo Bay was a long shot at best, don't you think?
wouldn't you expect that from a Republican candidate?
WSS
and back to your spin.
yes indeed I think it's perfectly valid for a candidate to take a stand on an issue that he feels strongly about. Even if it is one I disagree with. But that's not what he did. He made a promise.
of course neither one of us think he was qualified to make such a promise since he didn't really understand what is involved.
he surely had some advisors with enough experience to tell him that closing Guantanamo Bay was a long shot at best, don't you think?
wouldn't you expect that from a Republican candidate?
WSS
I'm quite sure he understood what was involved. That's where you're losing me.
-
Hey one more glitch.
did you just quip that you wanted gas prices to go up, pretending that you really don't?
are you on the record as saying that you now don't believe higher gas prices are good for the environment because they would curtail use of fossil fuels? It seems to me that was one of the ideas of the administration.
did you disagree then or do you disagree now or are you just talking out your ass?
WSS
Hey one more glitch.
did you just quip that you wanted gas prices to go up, pretending that you really don't?
are you on the record as saying that you now don't believe higher gas prices are good for the environment because they would curtail use of fossil fuels? It seems to me that was one of the ideas of the administration.
did you disagree then or do you disagree now or are you just talking out your ass?
WSS
I wanted cap and trade, but save that I want carbon taxes, which would make gas prices go up. I'm not following where you think the inconsistency is. I've only been talking about this for years.
-
a few posts a go you ended with as you know I want gas prices to go up. I wasn't sure if you were being facetious or just stating a fact that's it.
not a big deal.
WSS
-
Yeah, I do. Carbon prices up, income/FICA taxes down.
So back to the topic ...what do you do with the prisoners at Gitmo?
-
leave them there.
or let them go.
I certainly don't see the advantage of changing their location to the United States.
if we're afraid to offend al Qaeda they will probably hate Colorado just as bad. And make the same claims of torture and abuse. And they won't eat Hickenloopers food any quicker than they eat whatever they get at quantanamo.
WSS
-
Oh Jesus. Never mind.
Shame on me.
-
Oh Jesus. Never mind.
Shame on me.
Oh Jesus. Never mind.
Shame on me.
Shame on you for being a dipstick.
Sorry, I'm sure it will be great. Close it down.
Al Qaeda will love us again Thank Allah.
I can hear the patter in the lunchroom: Achmuud, Pass the spare ribs please
WSS
-
Yes, that's what this is about.
Stick to the Yoko jokes.
-
at any rate heck I just don't see what we gain.
the conditions there are better than any other prisonand you know that the enemies are going to claim horrific treatment no matter where these prisoners are located.
also I believe that since we are being accused without merit then it's probably not a good idea to jump and dance when they make their specious charges.
did I spell that right?
so that's my take.
WSS
-
for the record it's the right spelling I think, just the wrong word. I think I wanted something more akin to bullshit
-
You're missing the point here. You can go back and read - this really isn't about imagining you're going to make Al Qaeda like us, though that's the question you keep answering even though no one is asking it.
You have to figure out what to do with all of those prisoners. All of their cases have been studied. Each individual case. They're not all the same. Some have been cleared for release. Some have been cleared for transfer. Some have been cleared for trial. Some we can try because we tortured them. Some we can't try and we can't release. It's a big fucking mess.
Simply saying "Leave them all there" doesn't work. Except, of course, in the fascist state often express sympathy for.
-
Actually you are missing the point. And yes of course someone is making that argument, the president did in 2008 and vapor trail is making it now.
But let's agree to take that off the table.
So you're problem is that there are all sorts of tangled legal things going on that were not sure how to handle right?
Well my two options, leave them there or let them go seem about right.
If these people aren't guilty of any infraction why keep them there?
If they have them give them a trial and keep them there indefinitely.
But whatever the legal entanglements might be it doesn't matter where you keep them until those are sorted out.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, want's the house in their home state.
I also have no idea whose responsibility it is to sort it out. The Justice Department? The military?
Anyway no matter who it is it doesn't matter where they sleep.
As long as it isn't near our house. Or yours.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login