Law School Discussion

why obama win

Re: why obama win
« Reply #110 on: July 14, 2008, 02:33:47 PM »
well, let's see.  start with terrorism.

when our nation attacked by terrorists, did gump actually do much about it?  no, he just pretend.  instead, he ignore warnings from own people about impending attacks.  instead, he put most resources into fighting people who not have any connection to attacks, but who fit into his idiot advisors' preconceived grand theories about world domination--and also, apparently, get some revenge for his pappy.  instead, he violate constitution by eavesdropping on americans without warrants, unwilling abide by even minimal checks by judiciary;  had this actually caught any terrorists, julie sure we would've heard about it, as certainly gump has pretended caught actual terrorists at other times.  instead, he torture and imprison indefinitely suspected terrorists whose link to terorism so weak he going let most go rather than offer even minimal evidence justify holding them these many years.  instead, he torture prisoners so that now that what u.s. p.o.w.s can expect elsewhere.  instead, he give us record deficits support this, making sure line cronies' pockets.  and especially, instead, he and his chumps question patriotism and even loyalty of anyone who question what he do.

at least buchanan not attack canada and pretend he doing something.

game already over.

I was sure we went into afghanistan to shut down al-qaeda and hunt Bin Laden.  Maybe I was dreaming.  No, wait.  I had a friend who went there with a group called "The U.S. Military". 

I know it's easy to confuse everything, but we went into Afghanistan (we're still there).  AND we went into Iraq.  Intelligence, which the international community and the US congress believed at the time, said that Hussein was arming and financing terror organizations, had met with Bin Laden's people, and had WMD's.  He was also refusing to follow the terms of the cease fire agreement Saddam signed.  And he was killing his own people.

Try taking off your hard core, anti-war, lefty hat for a few minutes and read something other than articles written by anti-war lefties for a change.  You might learn something.

Who am I kidding.  You don't care about the truth.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: why obama win
« Reply #111 on: July 14, 2008, 02:37:55 PM »
yes, this certainly gump's line of propaganda on iraq, and we all heard it many times before.  julie not refer to afghanistan, except we certainly seem have bungled that pretty well.

so, your argument "guilty, but with lame excuse."

worst.  president.  ever.


Re: why obama win
« Reply #112 on: July 14, 2008, 02:40:41 PM »
yes, this certainly gump's line of propaganda on iraq, and we all heard it many times before.  julie not refer to afghanistan, except we certainly seem have bungled that pretty well.

so, basic`ally, your argument "guilty, but with lame excuse."

worst.  president.  ever.



Nice to see your reading comprehension skills haven't improved at all.  YOUR argument may be 'guilty, but with lame excuse', but certainly not mine.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: why obama win
« Reply #113 on: July 14, 2008, 02:42:17 PM »
ha ha.  even james buchanan know you wrong.


Re: why obama win
« Reply #114 on: July 14, 2008, 02:54:23 PM »
"Allowing police to search a home without a warrant would also make us safer, and I'm sure you'd argue for that too."

Why is it when we talk about the Bush administration and detention of enemy combatants, the best arguments are made using US citizens and hypothetical abuse of their rights?  I would NOT argue for allowing police to search homes without warrants.  But those homes are in the US.  I have no problem with the US military doing the same in Iraq, afghanistan or any other country where we have troops.  Which is why your argument is false.  Have you seen reports of US citizens being detained without habeus corpus rights or are you just not able to seperate the rights of US citizens and the rights of enemy combatants who are foreign nationals?  Do they have the same rights in your book?  Does Khalid Sheik Muhammed or Osama bin Laden have the same rights as Joe American?

"Whatever the justification, it was not worth the costs in lives, money and political clout."
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.  I respect it and wouldn't dare think less of you for it.  But I disagree completely.  And of the soldiers and veterans I've spoken to, few agree with you.  But that's what's great about this country - you and I can disgree without fear of dismemberment or rioting.

"The point about Valerie Plame is that the administration retaliated against her for her husband's debunking their false claims about Iraq.  Whether she was undercover or not has become a disputed issue, but the retaliation and coverup are not disputed."

Yeah, ok.  Forget the fact that he didn't debunk anything, nor was he qualified to make such an assertion.  He went, spoke to one guy who said that while he wasn't aware of any uranium purchases, he had been approached by an iraqi official about potentially purchasing uranium.  And they didn't retaliate against him for what he said.  If anything, he used an op-ed piece in the newspaper to trash the administration.  And if you look at the case, most of the charges were unfounded and thrown out.  They got him on some bull perjury, obstruction and making false statements charges.  Patrick Fitzgerald was so embarrassed that he tucked tail and returned to chicago to his 'day job'.  The retaliation and coverup are hardly settled, legally speaking, and no charges related to either were proven.  But revisionist history IS more fun than the truth, I guess.

"You didn't respond to the politicization of the Department of Justice and their discrimination against people for their political views.  I bet that's not where this ends."
Sorry about that.  I find it rather boring of a subject because it makes no sense.  But I can explain.  Bush didn't politicize the DOJ.  He politicized the USAG's office, an office full of political appointees that has always been politicized.  Bush's mistake was keeping on Clinton's people for so long.  See, USAG's are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President.  I'm sorry so few like this fact, but it is hardly new.  When Clinton took office, he fired the lot and put members of the democrat party into those positions.  The USAG's who were fired refused to investigate democrat corruption, voter fraud, and other alleged crimes.  Boo-hoo.  The way I see it, these people were under Bush's thumb and if you or I refused to do the work our supervisor gave us, we'd be out of jobs too.

"The Bush administration authorized the use of torture, no question about that."
Only if you define the word 'torture' in a way that makes it convenient to come to that conclusion.  Waterboarding, the evil pointed to by so many on the left, simply isn't torture.  I've seen the video of reporters undergoing it and moments later, they are fine.
As a matter of fact, here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227357,00.html#
And while some whine about 'controlled conditions' etc., understand that this is done by trained operatives with medics on the ready in a controlled environment.  The operatives are not angry.  They are calm and do their jobs carefully.

""Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated detainee abuse for the Army, concluded that “there is no longer any doubt” that “war crimes were committed.” Ms. Mayer uncovered another damning verdict: Red Cross investigators flatly told the C.I.A. last year that America was practicing torture and vulnerable to war-crimes charges. "

Ok. That's his opinion.  He's entitled to it.  did you know that was supposed to be a classified report?  Amazing that it got leaked, no?  When they do investigations, especially classified one's, they send more than one person to compile more than one report.  Funny how the other reports didn't get 'leaked' no?  Or did you think that this country, investigating possible torture, would send one guy to write one report?  When a laptop got stolen at my job last year, 15 people investigated the matter and it generated 3 reports, each with different conclusions.  None were 'leaked'.  A $900 laptop.

"So hot is the speculation that war-crimes trials will eventually follow in foreign or international courts that Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, has publicly advised Mr. Feith, Mr. Addington and Alberto Gonzales, among others, to “never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel.”"

Who cares what he advised?  Are they listening?  Are they concerned?  Is their any voracity to this advice?
I advise you not to travel to a US military base because of your criticism of the war.  Does that mean that advice means anything, or are they just words I use to make a fantastic point?  words.  How's those indictment papers from the international courts coming along?  Can they just be snatched up in the middle of the night at their hotel rooms by international police?

Why should anyone be locked up without evidence for the rest of their lives?  Does it even matter where they were born?  Leaving the Constitution aside, does it make moral sense?  Dont give me that it makes us safer bit, because that could be said about many many immoral and illegal practices.  Whatever happened to that chining city on the hill that was above abusing its power?

As far as the DOJ, I'm talking about the hiring, firing AND prosecution practices based on party affiliation.  If justice is justice, then it doesnt matter what political leanings one has. 

Um, President Bush said Iraq tried to get uranium from Africa in his state of the union speech, did he not?  That was a blatant lie. How did they not retaliate against him?  And how did they not cover it up?  Didn't the White House deny any involvement when the top aide to the VP was intimately involved?  And if Perjury is no big deal, then why did the Repubs make a huge deal of it with Clinton?

Iraq was not threatening us and had nothing to do with 9-11.  The justification was not there, but the emotional response of getting revenge was.  Whoever approved the war will be shamed by history, Dems and Repubs.

Iraq has cost lots and lots of money that we don't have and innocent Iraqi lives that were caught in the crossfire.  Republicans gripe about government waste, but this is the prime example of a double standard.  Do you have any concept of what we could have done with that money? 

As far as torture: First, how is physical coercion ever appropriate to get a confession?  Second, waterboarding is torture.  Third, the practices they use are modeled after China's, and we called it torture back then.  Fourth, someone who worked for the U.S., was privy to all the information and investigated the issue says that it was torture. Finally, there should be no debate whether interrogation measures used are torture or not, if they are even close, then they shouldn't be used because of the likelihood of getting false information and basic human decency.  Ask yourself, would you want an American troop to be treated the way we treat our detainees?  I should hope not, but that is what we are setting them up for and will have no grounds for complaining when it happens.

I'll be throwing one party when he leaves office and another when his associates are charged with war crimes.

Worst. President. Ever.


Donkey

  • ****
  • 199
  • Where's the beef?
    • View Profile
Re: why obama win
« Reply #115 on: July 14, 2008, 02:59:31 PM »
Obama will win because the country gets a populist urge every 30 years or so. This time the Republicans have become such big government guys that no one will stop him.

And when Obama's socialist tax hikes fail to fix anything, just remember that you were told. If you want proof, think back to the Great Society that wasn't. Again, the Great Society was a failure, so why would socialism magically work this time?

Bush may be a fairly terrible President, but he's basically like Clinton, except W wasted money on a war and not useless social programs. The result is the same; we get no actual return on either.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: why obama win
« Reply #116 on: July 14, 2008, 03:02:41 PM »
fix things?  julie happy this point not see whole country go hell.

Re: why obama win
« Reply #117 on: July 14, 2008, 06:14:08 PM »
"Ask yourself, would you want an American troop to be treated the way we treat our detainees?  I should hope not, but that is what we are setting them up for and will have no grounds for complaining when it happens."

You mean terrorists might start doing things to our soldiers, like beheading them or cutting off their genetalia and shoving it down their throats?
Boy.  That would be terrible if it wasn't already happening well before we tortured anyone.
What you are doing is equivocating us with them, and that's your mistake in this situation.  We are responding to terrorists who hide behind the people they claim to be fighting for, who use children as shields and who set IED's with the intent to maim anyone they don't manage to kill.  For being there.  In Iraq. 

"I'll be throwing one party when he leaves office and another when his associates are charged with war crimes.

Worst. President. Ever."

Sounds more like the most boring parties ever.
There will be no war crime charges.  And Obama won't win.  The reason he won the primary was because of his ability to unify the far left fringe.  Now that he's starting to soften his stances and move his campaign towards the center, he loses his advantage.
Of course if he wins, get ready to get raped on taxes when you manage to pass the bar - his tax hikes are likely to hit you harder than anyone, especially if you manage biglaw.
An Obama presidency is nothing more than a new old policy that failed before and will fail again.  At least with McCain, we have a chance to avoid the massive depression that would be the result of an Obama Presidency.  Gas prices are higher than ever, people's homes are worth less than they were 6 months ago, mortgage rates are rising, and spending is down.  Obama wants to raise taxes, which will leave the average american with even less disposable income, causing a further dip in consumer confidence and an even worse economy.  Food prices will rise significantly as the cost of living rises, production drops and unemployment skyrockets, directly proportional to the effect taxes will have on the american small business owner (many of whom will be forced to either reduce staff or go bankrupt). 
If you don't like Bush, that's ok.  But the Obamessiah won't save or solve any single problem that you think is important.  Not one.  He's now changed his stance on Iraq and afghanistan so much that it seems quite similar to McCain's plan.
Obama won't win, and if he does it will be a very difficult, depressing 4 years followed by a Republican President and Congress.
Did anyone notice or care that the democrat run congress has beaten their own low score on the congressional rating, a new record low in the history of that rating?
Blame Bush!  Blame Bush!  Blame Bush!
See you in November.

Re: why obama win
« Reply #118 on: July 14, 2008, 06:38:46 PM »
"Ask yourself, would you want an American troop to be treated the way we treat our detainees?  I should hope not, but that is what we are setting them up for and will have no grounds for complaining when it happens."

You mean terrorists might start doing things to our soldiers, like beheading them or cutting off their genetalia and shoving it down their throats?
Boy.  That would be terrible if it wasn't already happening well before we tortured anyone.
What you are doing is equivocating us with them, and that's your mistake in this situation.  We are responding to terrorists who hide behind the people they claim to be fighting for, who use children as shields and who set IED's with the intent to maim anyone they don't manage to kill.  For being there.  In Iraq. 

"I'll be throwing one party when he leaves office and another when his associates are charged with war crimes.

Worst. President. Ever."

Sounds more like the most boring parties ever.
There will be no war crime charges.  And Obama won't win.  The reason he won the primary was because of his ability to unify the far left fringe.  Now that he's starting to soften his stances and move his campaign towards the center, he loses his advantage.
Of course if he wins, get ready to get raped on taxes when you manage to pass the bar - his tax hikes are likely to hit you harder than anyone, especially if you manage biglaw.
An Obama presidency is nothing more than a new old policy that failed before and will fail again.  At least with McCain, we have a chance to avoid the massive depression that would be the result of an Obama Presidency.  Gas prices are higher than ever, people's homes are worth less than they were 6 months ago, mortgage rates are rising, and spending is down.  Obama wants to raise taxes, which will leave the average american with even less disposable income, causing a further dip in consumer confidence and an even worse economy.  Food prices will rise significantly as the cost of living rises, production drops and unemployment skyrockets, directly proportional to the effect taxes will have on the american small business owner (many of whom will be forced to either reduce staff or go bankrupt). 
If you don't like Bush, that's ok.  But the Obamessiah won't save or solve any single problem that you think is important.  Not one.  He's now changed his stance on Iraq and afghanistan so much that it seems quite similar to McCain's plan.
Obama won't win, and if he does it will be a very difficult, depressing 4 years followed by a Republican President and Congress.
Did anyone notice or care that the democrat run congress has beaten their own low score on the congressional rating, a new record low in the history of that rating?
Blame Bush!  Blame Bush!  Blame Bush!
See you in November.

You prove my point exactly.  Coercion is never appropriate to gain a confession, not when they do it, not when we do it.

No, it will be a great party.  I'll start a facebook invite, maybe we can have a nationally coordinated party.  You're invited of course :)

and I think Obama will win because McCain is just more of the same failed Bush policies.  And you are wrong about his tax policy because he will only raise it on people making over $250,000 per year, so forgive me if I dont shed a tear for their life of hardship.  BTW, how else can the govt oercome the deficit that Bush has created with his reckless war?  Cut spending?  He'll do that too, but you have to admit that sometimes raising taxes is appropriate to offset overspending. 

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: why obama win
« Reply #119 on: July 14, 2008, 06:46:51 PM »

See you in November.

julie figure you get eaten first by pissants.