If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Democrats: "Yeah, about closing Gitmo, we really can't afford to pay for that now. Did you check with Citigroup?"   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 210
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

5003 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 May 2009 at 5:30 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



210 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-05-19 07:39:36 PM
CynicalLA You are not patriotic, you are a coward.

And here, I thought dissent was supposed to be the highest form of patriotism, and am used to the left going apoplectic over perceived instances of questioning anyone's patriotism. It is almost as if those ideals were only head conveniently.

But don't look now- people like me apparently still are in power, as this decision reveals, and how the Democrats voting for the Iraq war revealed, and how all of their rhetoric on Iraq long before Bush was elected reveals. The Democrats, when they are in power, seem to treat national security and foreign policy quite similar to the way Republicans did when they were in power. My difference with Democrat politicians is primarily over economics, not over the things that have your panties in a wad.
 
2009-05-19 07:39:40 PM
James F. Campbell: Holy shiat, where did all of you stupid farks non-batshiat insane Olberman worshippers come from?

FTFY. Seriously though, different opinions in a group of people is a dangerous thing. Maybe you could find all the people who don't agree with you and put a gold star on them, ya know, so you know when you're dealing with a stupid fark.
 
2009-05-19 07:41:23 PM
Yukon Callmeal: CynicalLA You are not patriotic, you are a coward.

And here, I thought dissent was supposed to be the highest form of patriotism, and am used to the left going apoplectic over perceived instances of questioning anyone's patriotism. It is almost as if those ideals were only head conveniently.

But don't look now- people like me apparently still are in power, as this decision reveals, and how the Democrats voting for the Iraq war revealed, and how all of their rhetoric on Iraq long before Bush was elected reveals. The Democrats, when they are in power, seem to treat national security and foreign policy quite similar to the way Republicans did when they were in power. My difference with Democrat politicians is primarily over economics, not over the things that have your panties in a wad.


You already revealed what kind of person you are. Don't reply.
 
2009-05-19 07:41:43 PM
Yukon Callmeal: We are a nation of laws. Apparently, not in the way you would like, but that hardly bums me out too much.

So we are a nation of laws, that holds civilian prisoners for up to 7 years without charges or trial.

Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

And please do not tell me they are not civilians. If you think that, you need to do some research on how most Guantanamo prisoners became prisoners.
 
2009-05-19 07:44:20 PM
The First: how is this stupid? do we prefer Obama closes Gitmo without a proper plan so everyone can biatch and whine? Gimme a break. The man has been president for only 5 months! it took Bush 7.5 years to fark us up royally and we want Obama to fix everything in 5 months?

Grow up.


Considering that Obama's FIRST order of business was to order Gitmo closed...yes, I think he jumped the gun without really looking at what to do with them...as MANY people said at the time. Those people were roundly yelled at by the liberals who wondered why we were even taking that long to close down Gitmo.

So...conclusion is...Liberals are farking stupid.
 
2009-05-19 07:44:57 PM
CynicalLA Don't reply.

Oh noes! That eeeeeevil Yukon Callmeal just won't do what you commanded! What will you ever do?
 
2009-05-19 07:47:10 PM
Yukon Callmeal: as this decision reveals

Maybe you didn't read the article. The Dems aren't funding the closing of Gitmo until the Administration does a better job of outlining their plan.

The Democrats, when they are in power, seem to treat national security and foreign policy quite similar to the way Republicans did when they were in power.

Closing Gitmo is quite a bit different than the Bush policy of not closing it.
 
2009-05-19 07:48:04 PM
Yukon Callmeal: CynicalLA Don't reply.

Oh noes! That eeeeeevil Yukon Callmeal just won't do what you commanded! What will you ever do?


Do what I command? There always going to be sick farks in this country and that's your right.
 
2009-05-19 07:48:51 PM
Is he the President or is he the President?

I say fark congress.. and as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces order the Military to transfer ALL of the detainees to Leavenworth pronto. Period. 2 747s should do it. Make it secret operation.
 
2009-05-19 07:50:30 PM
Soup4Bonnie: Closing Gitmo is quite a bit different than the Bush policy of not closing it.

When they're moved, the prisoners will likely enjoy worse conditions and fewer privileges.
 
2009-05-19 07:51:28 PM
mrlewish: I say fark congress.. and as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces order the Military to transfer ALL of the detainees to Leavenworth pronto. Period. 2 747s should do it. Make it secret operation.

Except that Leavenworth isn't set up to take them.
 
2009-05-19 07:52:05 PM
thenateman: Soup4Bonnie: Closing Gitmo is quite a bit different than the Bush policy of not closing it.

When they're moved, the prisoners will likely enjoy worse conditions and fewer privileges.


What about the ones that have been cleared of all charges?
 
2009-05-19 07:55:41 PM
Yukon Callmeal: CynicalLA You are not patriotic, you are a coward.

And here, I thought dissent was supposed to be the highest form of patriotism, and am used to the left going apoplectic over perceived instances of questioning anyone's patriotism. It is almost as if those ideals were only head conveniently.


You could not be more wrong. Dissent is patriotic. That will always be true regardless of the political beliefs of the person dissenting. As Americans we owe it to our country to point out whenever we think our nation is going the wrong direction.

The right to criticize should never be questioned.

It is however, quit valid to criticize the protester. To point out to the protesters that their dissent appears to be motivated more by fear than love of our nation.

It is still patriotic for you to engage in the tradition of protest, even if you appear to do so for selfish reasons.
 
2009-05-19 07:56:21 PM
CynicalLA: What about the ones that have been cleared of all charges?

Are there any prisoners who have been cleared of all charges? Are there even charges? (Answer: No.)
 
2009-05-19 07:58:00 PM
thenateman: CynicalLA: What about the ones that have been cleared of all charges?

Are there any prisoners who have been cleared of all charges? Are there even charges? (Answer: No.)


Yes, the chinese ones they are holding. Do we keep them in Gitmo forever?
 
2009-05-19 07:59:56 PM
Where is John Walker Lindh?

Where is Jose Padilla?

Where is the Unabomber?

Where are the Beltway Snipers?
 
2009-05-19 08:05:54 PM
CynicalLA: Yes, the chinese ones they are holding. Do we keep them in Gitmo forever?

Somebody has to take them before we can let them free. Diplomatic memos reveal Chinese effort to block Guantánamo prisoner's asylum bid (new window)

/I was about to suggest tossing them over the fence into Cuba, but Cuba would give them to China where they'd be tried
 
2009-05-19 08:07:28 PM
Yukon Callmeal: Take a look at a map and try to figure out how we could be engaged in Afghanistan without the bases in Iraq from which to provide logistics support. And I most certainly think Afghanistan was, and is, a necessary war.

We already were engaged in Afghanistan prior to Iraq and had the Taiban broken. So it makes total sense to allow them a few years of breathing room and time to regroup while commiting vast amounts of resources and men to a new and unnecessary front of battle.

Donand Rumsfeld is that you?
 
2009-05-19 08:08:49 PM
thenateman: CynicalLA: Yes, the chinese ones they are holding. Do we keep them in Gitmo forever?

Somebody has to take them before we can let them free. Diplomatic memos reveal Chinese effort to block Guantánamo prisoner's asylum bid (new window)

/I was about to suggest tossing them over the fence into Cuba, but Cuba would give them to China where they'd be tried


So we don't owe them shiat after holding them for seven years?
 
2009-05-19 08:09:03 PM
stvdallas: Considering that Obama's FIRST order of business was to order Gitmo closed...yes, I think he jumped the gun without really looking at what to do with them...as MANY people said at the time. Those people were roundly yelled at by the liberals who wondered why we were even taking that long to close down Gitmo.

So...conclusion is...Liberals are farking stupid.


There were people who wanted to keep Auschwitz open. There were still a lot of displaced Jews who had no where to go. Why not keep them some place that had been designed to hold large numbers of people? What else would we do with them?

It should be noted that the closing of Auschwitz was handled very poorly. The Red Army forced the remaining prisoners to go on what has been called a "death march".
 
2009-05-19 08:09:37 PM
Where is Richard Reid, the shoe bomber?

Surely we don't want these terrorists on American soil, right??
 
2009-05-19 08:09:41 PM
CynicalLA: So we don't owe them shiat after holding them for seven years?

Not sending them to China seems like a nice thing to do. What do you think they should get, a pony?
 
2009-05-19 08:10:42 PM
thenateman: CynicalLA: So we don't owe them shiat after holding them for seven years?

Not sending them to China seems like a nice thing to do. What do you think they should get, a pony?


Exile in the United States.
 
2009-05-19 08:15:26 PM
CynicalLA: Exile in the United States.

I should commend your heartfelt concern for these people. Posting on Fark is a necessary step in getting them released.
 
2009-05-19 08:17:44 PM
thenateman: CynicalLA: Exile in the United States.

I should commend your heartfelt concern for these people. Posting on Fark is a necessary step in getting them released.


We held 17 innocent people for seven years without trial and you don't think they deserve anything? Just fark them? Do you have a soul?
 
2009-05-19 08:17:56 PM
thenateman: CynicalLA: What about the ones that have been cleared of all charges?

Are there any prisoners who have been cleared of all charges? Are there even charges? (Answer: No.)


If there are no charges, why are we keeping them?

vernonFL: Where is John Walker Lindh?

Where is Jose Padilla?

Where is the Unabomber?

Where are the Beltway Snipers?


Where the hell are you coming from?
 
2009-05-19 08:18:45 PM
Somaticasual: Facetious_Speciest: We can't afford to close it, but we can keep it going indefinitely? Ok...

...the Senate's top Democrat said he opposes transferring any Guantanamo prisoners to the United States for their trials or to serve their sentences.

"I can't make it any more clear," Reid said. "We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States."

Uh...if they're terrorists, surely you can convict them. If you can't, why hold them?

Because they'd be pariahs from gitmo. We can't have them out there, running all willy nilly and exposing the US for it's bold-face lies about not using torture.

//our country is now doing the inhuman things we've long accused them of.


There are a few terrorists (mostly chinese?) who can be proven to have plotted against their home countries, but not ours. Hard to convict those folk, hard to extradite them to a "war crime on wheels" country like China, Afghanistan (where we got 'em) doesn't want 'em, so the solution options are politically shaky.

Plenty of "enemy combatants" are dangerous now because we drove them insane with torture, so it's dangerous to let 'em out.

Of course there are wheeler-dealer ways of stuffing these people in other countries, we used these methods back in the 80s and 90s when we outsourced torture to Egypt. But they'll all look bad, and a lot of them will show that America's war on terror was bullshiat.
 
2009-05-19 08:20:30 PM
thenateman: CynicalLA: So we don't owe them shiat after holding them for seven years?

Not sending them to China seems like a nice thing to do. What do you think they should get, a pony?


Green cards.
 
2009-05-19 08:21:05 PM
Burn98:
Where the hell are you coming from?


I believe his point is that if terrorists are so dangerous we cannot hold them stateside, why are these individuals in US prisons?
 
2009-05-19 08:21:10 PM
Why do no Congress members understand that the prisoners would be transferred to federal prisons and not state ones? Who gives a shiat if a state prison won't accept them, it's not their place to.
 
2009-05-19 08:24:26 PM
Where the hell are you coming from?

One of the reasons given for not closing Gitmo is that we can't have these terrorists held here in the USA.

My point is that we already have terrorists here in the USA.

All of the terrorists I mentioned above were tried, convicted, and are serving their sentences.
 
2009-05-19 08:25:03 PM
The Dog Ate The Constitution: Why do no Congress members understand that the prisoners would be transferred to federal prisons and not state ones? Who gives a shiat if a state prison won't accept them, it's not their place to.

The GOP is using it as way to make the Democrats look weak on National Security. Most Americans won't understand the difference and will probably believe the propaganda. The Democrats are afraid it will hurt them in elections and are changing their stance. That's my take on it.
 
2009-05-19 08:25:35 PM
thenateman: CynicalLA: Exile in the United States.

I should commend your heartfelt concern for these people. Posting on Fark is a necessary step in getting them released.


Unless you can give a really good reason why you are posting on Fark, the above is a very stupid statement.
 
2009-05-19 08:27:53 PM
vernonFL: My point is that we already have terrorists here in the USA.

Thanks for the clarification.
 
2009-05-19 08:32:16 PM
CynicalLA: We held 17 innocent people for seven years without trial and you don't think they deserve anything? Just fark them? Do you have a soul?

Maybe you should inquire about Obama's soul. He could release them with the stroke of a pen. Hell, he could have saved pen strokes and released them when he ordered Guantanamo's closure in January. Then again, Obama probably knows a lot more about the situation than either of us and he probably has good reasons for not setting them free.
 
2009-05-19 08:35:44 PM
thenateman: Obama probably knows a lot more about the situation than either of us and he probably has good reasons for not setting them free.

Political reasons I'm sure. What's your view?
 
2009-05-19 08:38:50 PM
CynicalLA: What's your view?

This one:

www.blogcdn.com
 
2009-05-19 08:40:22 PM
thenateman: CynicalLA: What's your view?

This one:


Whatever, stay vague.
 
2009-05-19 09:17:24 PM
vernonFL: What do you do with a prison full of innocent people?

You can't release them.


Hahahaha. So what, are you the press agent for the Taliban? "Full of innocent people?" (who were picked up on the battle field shooting at Americans). Many of the "innocent" people who were released under Bush wound up getting recaptured on the battle field shooting at Americans again. Prisoners are given a number of reviews to plead their case at Gitmo. It does the military no good to hold an innocent person, rather it wastes money and resources. If they think some one does not belong there they send them home it would make no sense to keep non-terrorists there. If you actually believe liberal tripe such as you are spewing you have officially been indoctrinated and are no longer a person, rather you are a but a mindless sheep. I hope you were just trolling, if not, I pit you for your paranioa and ignorance.
 
2009-05-19 09:29:17 PM
jdmac:

Many of the "innocent" people who were released under Bush wound up getting recaptured on the battle field shooting at Americans again

Why were they released in the first place then?

If they think some one does not belong there they send them home it would make no sense to keep non-terrorists there

Then why are we doing it right now then? There are people there that have been cleared, and they have been there for years even though they shouldn't have ever been there in the first place.

Prisoners are given a number of reviews to plead their case at Gitmo.

Many of the military prosecutors and defense have resigned or complained that these reviews are unfair.

I'm always partly trolling. Are there psychotic murderers in Gitmo? Of course. They should be prosecuted.
 
2009-05-19 09:54:45 PM
Yukon Callmeal: The good news is that the Democrats aren't as stupid as their hardcore base is!

Yah, when did the Democrats get hit with the intelligent stick?
 
2009-05-19 09:59:50 PM
Machtyn: Yukon Callmeal: The good news is that the Democrats aren't as stupid as their hardcore base is!

Yah, when did the Democrats get hit with the intelligent stick?


They realize it doesn't matter, since Obama can simply pay for any transfers from Gitmo he decides on by transferring it from some other general military appropriation. Congress has to specifically forbid the money being spent for a particular purpose.
 
2009-05-19 10:30:49 PM
What a friggin idiot Obama is and the Democrats are doing a great job of helping him look that way.

In other news, Democrats are proving to be as worthless as they have been the past 2 years.
 
2009-05-19 10:32:11 PM
TheBigJerk: Somaticasual: Facetious_Speciest: We can't afford to close it, but we can keep it going indefinitely? Ok...

...the Senate's top Democrat said he opposes transferring any Guantanamo prisoners to the United States for their trials or to serve their sentences.

"I can't make it any more clear," Reid said. "We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States."

Uh...if they're terrorists, surely you can convict them. If you can't, why hold them?

Because they'd be pariahs from gitmo. We can't have them out there, running all willy nilly and exposing the US for it's bold-face lies about not using torture.

//our country is now doing the inhuman things we've long accused them of.

There are a few terrorists (mostly chinese?) who can be proven to have plotted against their home countries, but not ours. Hard to convict those folk, hard to extradite them to a "war crime on wheels" country like China, Afghanistan (where we got 'em) doesn't want 'em, so the solution options are politically shaky.

Plenty of "enemy combatants" are dangerous now because we drove them insane with torture, so it's dangerous to let 'em out.

Of course there are wheeler-dealer ways of stuffing these people in other countries, we used these methods back in the 80s and 90s when we outsourced torture to Egypt. But they'll all look bad, and a lot of them will show that America's war on terror was bullshiat.


You know, if we've already passed the 'torture' point, adding 'surgical lobotomy' would probably reduce the possible rate of recidivism..
 
2009-05-19 10:48:03 PM
vernonFL: What do you do with a prison full of innocent people? You can't release them.

Aaaaaand that's why your comments appear in green on my page.
 
2009-05-19 10:58:17 PM
necropoultryac: HAHAHAHALook at all the butt hurt libs

I think the fact that the serious lefties are getting slightly shrill about Obama makes a lot of us very comfortable indeed, including most people who voted for Obama.

I get to laff at lefties' butthurt AND yours! Good times. America is truly on the rise again.
 
2009-05-19 11:26:40 PM
thenateman: This was another of those things he said just so he could get elected, right? Like believing in God and opposing gay marriage?

You realize that Obama is not the Senate, nor is he the House of Representatives?

Anyway...wharrgarrbling aside...

Yes, this pisses me off. Because even after all this time, Democrats are still spineless weenies.

"But if we move the prisoners to the United States, then people will get scared that terrorists will kill all of us through the prison walls and they'll vote us out of office! OH NOES!"
 
2009-05-19 11:45:30 PM
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !

It ain't nevar gonna happen! NEVAR!

Hats off to all you dimwits who bought the line of BS that Gitmo wold be closed. There is no place to send the worst of them, and the best the Obamanator will be able to do is give them their MILITARY TRIBUNALS! Line em up and shoot them, or give em life, in Gitmo they will stay!

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !
 
2009-05-20 12:02:28 AM
FredoLaredo: It ain't nevar gonna happen! NEVAR!

Would you like to lay some money down on it?
 
2009-05-20 12:29:34 AM
Maybe if we released all those non violent possession convictions we might just find some room for the ones who should really be behind bars.

We already have Supermax Facilities with 23 hour a day isolation in a room. This sort of thing is not unrealistic or unheard of.

The Republicans, for very good reason, are touchy about the dismantling of their handiwork.

Unfortunately it looks like the shiatpile is so complex and intertwined with key details they cant just cut the cords and drop all these potentially important people with no charges or a weak case into the US legal system where they all the sudden have rights.

Perhaps the only compromise would be better treatment/acoutrements for the duration of the weaker links, but who knows as we still don't have all the information available.

What I gather is this:

A promise was made by a politician, upon receiving better information, his stance changed.

I thought this was the behavior we wanted? I know people on the politics tab and in person like to make things real absolute and party partisan... but how is this as bad as or worse than 8 years of "stay the course?" No matter what. Stay the course.

"Oops hey sorry about that yellow cake memo... Huh... you mean most of the 9/11 Hijackers were Saudis? And Saddam had no nukes? You mean there were't even any chemical or biological weapons? Not even the taliban? Oh, they showed up right after we did? well, so it's not a total loss then... ad infinitum ..."
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report