|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 18, 2010 8:01:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 18, 2010 8:44:04 GMT -5
Gee, you think maybe he is trying to not polarize a nation any more than it already is by further demonizing the previous leader? His agenda is polarizing enough, he really doesn't need to throw more fuel on the fire. So you're saying we shouldn't bring criminals to justice if such a move would be unpopular? In essence yes, I am saying exactly that. Bet you weren't expecting that were you? Now allow me to explain. In this case you are dealing with a lot of ugly realities that pretty well force Obama to adopt a pragmatic approach and let sleeping dogs lie. The previous admins laws that are in question either need to be repealed or defended. Trying to repeal those laws right now would cause a log jam that would keep more pressing things from being dealt with and allow the republicans to hammer home the message that Obama is soft on defense. At the same time, the government cannot act in bad faith and send in a junior law clerk to defend a challenge to it. Similarly, appointing someone who would try and convict Bush right now would cause a shitstorm the likes the world has rarely seen. It would be played as being a government vendetta and as a slap in the face and direct attack on half the population. It would also be defended with an incredible amount of vigor since a lot of politicians, both former and current, have their reputations and legacies intimately tied to that administration. When the right get their backs up, they get dangerous and they get irrational. Even now they are stonewalling everything just because the democrats are proposing it. Two wars, an economic disaster, a mid to long term future that has a lot of problems and no easy answers, and all the right wants to do is fuck over the left out of spite. I don't think America can afford to maintain the status quo and do nothing for four or eight years. I suspect that Obama thinks the same.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 18, 2010 9:07:59 GMT -5
Ok Fred. You're in charge. Try to find a way for Obama to put a stop to the Bush era policies that totally undermined our rights and freedoms in the name of security. Keeping in mind that Obama probably wants to have a second term in office. Ironbite-I'm really curious on how you'd play this. It's important to note than Obama is not doing nothing. He is doing less than nothing. He is actually undermining the constitution, giving a bipartisan sheen to Bush criminality. A little more than that would have had Dawn Johnsen appointed through recess appointments, secrecy defences abandoned in court and so on. Although the current innocents would be imprisoned without charge forever, no more people would be held in such a way. The various supposedly independent legal arms of the government wouldn't be blocked from charging Bush/Cheney officials. That would be a minimum. A more effective policy would have the Guantanamo detainees either charged in a real court or freed. If found innocent, or when lacking credible or legal evidence, they would also be allowed to go. An even more constitutional policy would have Obama support the prosecution of the John Yoos and Dock Cheney's of the previous administration, and compensation for their innocent victims. That...doesn't even begin to answer my question. Ironbite-like...at all.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Apr 18, 2010 10:32:08 GMT -5
So you're saying we shouldn't bring criminals to justice if such a move would be unpopular? In essence yes, I am saying exactly that. Bet you weren't expecting that were you? I wasn't sure. But my standard response when I put someone else's opinions in the craziest terms possible and they still agree with them is to simply rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 18, 2010 11:58:01 GMT -5
I wasn't sure. But my standard response when I put someone else's opinions in the craziest terms possible and they still agree with them is to simply rest my case. I'm cool with that. You don't mind if I still keep ranting do you?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 21, 2010 14:19:29 GMT -5
Tiger, the craziest terms possible are "bleeashhiasdngh. BLEERAUIGG!*" Please make a note of it.
*close second: "I respect Sarah Palin for her intelligence and work ethic".
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Apr 21, 2010 14:36:05 GMT -5
And the third is "Zalgo."
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 21, 2010 16:34:46 GMT -5
*close second: "I respect Sarah Palin for her intelligence and work ethic". Hey that's not fair, she had to suck literal miles of cock to get where she is today. That takes a special kind of dedication to her career that most people just don't have.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Apr 21, 2010 18:11:29 GMT -5
Now allow me to explain. In this case you are dealing with a lot of ugly realities that pretty well force Obama to adopt a pragmatic approach and let sleeping dogs lie. The previous admins laws that are in question either need to be repealed or defended. Trying to repeal those laws right now would cause a log jam that would keep more pressing things from being dealt with and allow the republicans to hammer home the message that Obama is soft on defense. At the same time, the government cannot act in bad faith and send in a junior law clerk to defend a challenge to it. Similarly, appointing someone who would try and convict Bush right now would cause a shitstorm the likes the world has rarely seen. It would be played as being a government vendetta and as a slap in the face and direct attack on half the population. It would also be defended with an incredible amount of vigor since a lot of politicians, both former and current, have their reputations and legacies intimately tied to that administration. When the right get their backs up, they get dangerous and they get irrational. Even now they are stonewalling everything just because the democrats are proposing it. Two wars, an economic disaster, a mid to long term future that has a lot of problems and no easy answers, and all the right wants to do is fuck over the left out of spite. I don't think America can afford to maintain the status quo and do nothing for four or eight years. I suspect that Obama thinks the same. I'd have to agree as annoying as it is, if Obama was to attempt to take action against these things the republicans would have the classic 'Liberals are weak and want the terrorists to win' line, with 'actual' 'support' for their cause. In fact, I think they were counting on it for november, and I think november is one reason we won't see any action on it until either the Democrats get a more solid majority or Obama is in a second term. If they give the right a reason they can use as an excuse to do the resisting they'll look like something other than obstructionist dicks, despite their true nature. If we can get something accomplished, get some momentum behind the liberals who have been demonized for most of the time I've been alive shown to be competent, then we can accomplish what should be done. Until then it's covering our ass and keeping the country from falling apart. The one thing I think the Dems should do is change the filibuster rules. I would fucking run for office if they actually had to sit through everything I could spew to maintain a filibuster.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 22, 2010 3:28:29 GMT -5
You should read them every single one of Skyfire's posts.
Ironbite-most epic filibuster ever.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 22, 2010 6:47:22 GMT -5
Eight years of Neo-con policies and legislation can't just be swept away while proclaiming damn the consequences. The number of detainees at Gitmo has be severely reduced. The ones that are left are hard cases. We may not have enough evidence, at least that would stand in court, to prosecute these people, but just letting them go is also a bad idea. What do you do? Look at the trouble with Khalid Sheik Mohammed and trying to prosecute him in civil courts. Sorting out this whole mess is going to take time and will not be easy.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 22, 2010 10:44:21 GMT -5
If there's not enough evidence for a trial, they shouldn't have ever been detained. I say compensate them for their time, apologize, and let them go. If they need help to relocate someplace, give them that help.
I don't care if they're guilty or not, if there's not the evidence, then you can't do shit to them.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 22, 2010 10:47:37 GMT -5
If there's not enough evidence for a trial, they shouldn't have ever been detained. I say compensate them for their time, apologize, and let them go. If they need help to relocate someplace, give them that help. I don't care if they're guilty or not, if there's not the evidence, then you can't do shit to them. Evidence and evidence that would be allowed in court are two different things.
|
|
|
Post by Elly on Apr 23, 2010 21:05:12 GMT -5
My parents oppose Obama almost completely, and as I've generally thought them to be intelligent and reasonable people, their statements about him have colored how I see him, even though I don't know anything about him. That's why I'm really glad you asked that question. I don't have anything to offer, but I'm going to keep reading this thread.
Anyway, er, I've read that the new healthcare plan will make it so that we will be required to buy insurance. Where does that leave people who simply can't afford insurance without jeopardizing their other bills? This is worrying me.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 24, 2010 0:27:59 GMT -5
My parents oppose Obama almost completely, and as I've generally thought them to be intelligent and reasonable people, their statements about him have colored how I see him, even though I don't know anything about him. That's why I'm really glad you asked that question. I don't have anything to offer, but I'm going to keep reading this thread. Anyway, er, I've read that the new healthcare plan will make it so that we will be required to buy insurance. Where does that leave people who simply can't afford insurance without jeopardizing their other bills? This is worrying me. As we've already seen discussed, anyone making less than 50k per year will be offered government help to purchase insurance. Once insured, they can't be dropped at a whim of the insurance company because they can't make a profit on the person
|
|