A Highly Logical Approach

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Richard1327 @ 07/12/2009 1:54:04 PM

    I always said if by some miracle Obama became president, he would be eaten alive by Washington, would never accomplish anything and would be a one term president. Obama needs to move full force with gay rights in marriage/serving openly in the military, ending Iraq, saving Social Security, backing renewable clean energy and setting up a single-payer government managed universal healthcare system - JUST LIKE WE ELECTED HIM TO DO. We do NOT care about the GOP and bipartisanship. They had eight years and all they did was screw up the country. We voted in a Democratic Congress to help Obama get the job done, SO DO IT ALREADY or we'll elect someone else that will. I think the media and pundits are being ignorant if they think if Obama won't get the job done, we'll turn back to the GOP again. WRONG - 2012 is when the independents, disillusioned Dems and moderate Repubs turn away from both parties to elect an independent visionary who will finally get the job done with bold leadership. Just exactly when did our government stop being a representative democracy?

  • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 06/20/2009 3:13:57 PM

    "I welcome a debate about how we can make sure our regulations work for businesses and consumers," Obama said. "But what I will not accept - what I will vigorously oppose - are those who do not argue in good faith." As this quote clearly points out Obama once again gets to the heart of it and 'calls a spade a spade'. He simply doesn't always have all of the best answers but he really seems to continually have the honesty and conscience to sincerely identify and address the problems, something not seen enough in politics. As far as not always having the best answers, he states he "welcome(s) a debate" and in the past he has completely encouraged compromise with the intent of finding the real best solutions, which actually should be the single focus of an honestly conscientious congress. The Associated Press article continues, [By that, Obama said, he meant those who defend the status quo at any cost. He didn't name any people or organizations, but said special interests are already mobilizing to fight change. He called that typical Washington. "These are the interests that have benefited from a system which allowed ordinary Americans to be exploited," Obama said. The president said he would stand up for his plans, saying: "While I'm not spoiling for a fight, I'm ready for one. The most important thing we can do to put this era of irresponsibility in the past is to take responsibility now."] Really, who can deny that the Special Interests and Republicans who are loudly criticizing and aggressively trying to block everything, while offering no real solutions and only hoping to return to 'more of the same', are nothing more than obstructionists irresponsibly playing politics and focused only on their own selfish interests. Obama's responsible approach to conscientiously focus on what is right for the people is what this country desperately needs but to be really effective it has to be coupled with a Senate and Congress who put politics aside and conscientiously focus on fine tuning everything. Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever should see this truth and demand that our representatives/candidates drop their deceptive and exploitive politics, with their focus on only benefiting a few, and begin to "in good faith" debate and cooperate to achieve what is best for the people, which is their only real responsibility. To loose this opportunity and return to 'more of the same' would be disastrous.

  • Posted By: brydges @ 05/20/2009 1:39:17 PM

    What is absolutely appalling is that there is nothing in this magazine or any other liberal rag about A.C.O.R.N. and its voter fraud the money they embezzled or the fact that Congress refuses to investigate.

    • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/15/2009 7:23:20 PM

      I hear you can get Guns and Ammo mag for next to nothin' now.
      That would be a great place for you to post.
      I understand they have a press and play alphabet too.

      I mean really, this liberal, left-wing, booby hatch should be the last place you post to, right?

    • Posted By: Jack999 @ 05/20/2009 5:49:51 PM

      This typical same question had been ask by the 20% Repugs Americans ,Of course it have been investigate by FBI,so far no evidence to suggested any wrong doing of their part.Next what? President Obama Birth Certificate?Make sure he's not born n Kenya?For Goodness sakes.I don't to be rude before he is a US President he's US senator , Government already check Obama credential status and been verified,before he's Presidential Candidate.The way these Repugs did pose questions not only make them look Idiots but indirectly does make the US constitution look alike. .

      • Posted By: jh35180 @ 05/28/2009 4:59:09 PM

        Jack, overall I get your point, but the end of your last sentence doesn't even make sense.

  • Posted By: left coast @ 05/21/2009 3:32:09 AM

    John, admit it, the past two elections have proven that we are no longer a center-right nation, especially with the young people and Latino vote. We are at least a center-center nation.

    • Posted By: jh35180 @ 05/28/2009 4:57:12 PM

      It is interesting that you bring up the Latino vote. Granted 67% of the Latinos who voted, voted for Obama. I heard an interesting statistic about the Latinos in the U.S., about 1/3 of Latinos are Evangelical Chrsitians. One has to wonder that if these Evangelicals learn more about Obama's stand on abortion, will they be as likely to vote for Obama in 2012. As far as the young voters, will they be as kind to Obama in 2012 when they discover that Obama helped put them in the poor house with the mountain of debt.

      • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/15/2009 7:21:06 PM

        If Palin or McCain run - sure.
        But heck, who have you guys got left?

      • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 06/09/2009 5:36:12 PM

    • Posted By: SmilinBob @ 05/21/2009 2:54:36 PM

      AND JOHN, LEFT COAST IS JUST SAYING YOU RPARTY IS DEAD, IN A NICE WAY. NOW GO AWAY.

  • Posted By: knightwall @ 06/11/2009 6:31:52 PM

    barak obama takes his time, research the problem, research solutions, utilize the think tank to analyze solutions, select a
    solution.

  • Posted By: SmilinBob @ 05/21/2009 2:34:30 PM

    HOW COME WE'RE STILL HEARING FROM REPUBLICANS? DIDN'T THEY GET THE MEMO/ YOUR PARTY DIED LAST NOVEMBER AND NOBODY ATTENDED THE SERVICES.

  • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/17/2009 3:11:13 PM

    Ok so the Highly logical approach was a star trek referrence. Not a commentary on how this president is approaching leadership of the country. The naive notion that somehow we should bring court cases against detainees who were captured in battle or through cia operations is astonishing. Does he not know how much damage can be done to our security by shedding that kind of light on our procedures. Countries have been detaining their enemies for centuries without so much as a shred of evidence ever shown to anyone. This is part of leading a country. You support those that protect you no matter what.
    His dismal of Dick Cheney is laughable considering his cabinet and party have spent the last 2 years trying to destroy his character in the press. All Dick has asked for is the release of the evidence that doesnt seem like such a bad request to the most transparent government iin the history of America does it???

    • Posted By: rednews72 @ 05/17/2009 6:37:19 PM

      Onepoker. Again you are showing your lack of integrity. You say "Not all Muslims are guilty but if we captured them I will assume their was a good reason". Right off the bat you say 'assume' that the reasoning for capture and detention had to have a good reason. As has been proved multiple times already, there were people entirely innocent of any crime or connection to terrorist activities that were detained. So while you're 'assuming' there was good reason for capture, innocent people were detained for years.

      IIn your world where there is complete lack of logic, you may think that this is OK in defense of our country. What I'd like to know is how you would feel if you were held for 3 years of your life and then released without so much as an apology. The fact that our country did this is shameful. The fact that you are DEFENDING this kind of action is shameful.

      The reason the United States had (I say had because Bush squandered it) the credibility to take the moral high ground is our history. We do not torture. We give people due process to prove their innocence. Once we lose the moral high ground we lose our power to talk down dictators.

      Secondly in context the word is 'there' not their. "there was a good reason". "Their reasoning is flawed". In addition to citizenship classes you should also be taking English grammar classes.

      • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 12:38:49 AM

        rednews thank you for pointing out my grammatical errors. If this were a term paper I would of proof read it line by line but since it is a discussion I just type and post. I am aware that this makes me appear less intelligent to those of you who think proper grammer and punctuation is essential to communication. I

        As for me assuming the people we have captured are guilty of something. I did not say they are guilty but I do not believe in times of war you can afford to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If we have unfortunately incarcerated some innocent Iraqi's or Afganis I am truly sorry but I do not think it is prudent to release every prisoner we have because one or two might be innocent. As for the Torture that is pure nonsense. These men were not tortured they were interrogated. Water boarding was only used on three prisoners and they were all guilty beyond any shred of doubt. You may not be able to live with the fact that your country sometimes harms its enemies but I could not live with a country that did not do everything in its power to stop its citizens from being killed. I believe that is what the CIA has done in this instance and although we may never know just how effective the techniques were I would say 6 years without a second attack is proof of their success.
        Moral High Ground may win you debates but it will not save lives nor will it preserve life, liberty and the american way of life for our citizens.

        • Posted By: Jack999 @ 05/20/2009 10:48:58 AM

          Again proves you're totally "Confused " on Common Law. Torture is a Crime under Domestic and International Laws.To Your Own Words said "Water boarding was only used on three prisoners and they were all guilty beyond any shred of doubt. You may not be able to live with the fact that your country sometimes harms its enemies but I could not live with a country that did not do everything in its power to stop its citizens from being killed." Lets Me Correct You,The Point you're saying,Look like this,Its Allows for Americans breaking the Laws for "LOOTING" just to feeds the Hungry.Let me reminds you,Those who're supporting a Crime,Protecting Criminals,Conspiracy with Criminals is a Crime under which ever Laws ,you can't find any excuses for defending Criminals.Period.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 2:12:27 PM

      "You support those that protect you no matter what."

      No matter whether or not they take actions out of line with America's morality, or actions that damage our reputation abroad, or actions that enrich themselves at a human cost to others?

      I don't sign off on blind trust for ANYBODY. I'm an American. That's the kind of thinking that police states and oppressive regimes all over the world have used to justify exploitation and repression of their own people.

      The fact that you seem to think I ought to defer my independence of thought to any political or military organization in this world is strongly against my understanding of what it means to live in America.

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 4:55:34 PM

        No response to this, onepoker?

        Don't you think that my agreement to support someone no matter what they do robs me of my ability to use my own judgement in the voting process? Isn't the ability to support what I want to support a hallmark of American political thought?

        • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 5:58:27 PM

          What I am saying Vigilance is you pick a side either ours or theirs. I know full well innocent people will die either way I choose to prevent our people from dying. I think it is absolutely correct to question your government but I also feel at times of war you need to give them a long leash to do what is necessary to protect the citizens. If the government fails an entire city could be wiped out. Hundreds of thousands of people could die. Some will argue that Hundreds of Thousands of people have died because of our actions. The truth is those people would have been oppressed and murdered or subjegated rather we stayed in Iraq or if we abandoned the country after we left a massive power vacuume.

          • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 8:50:39 PM

            Who's "they", specifically? Can you provide me a list of the combatants on each side, and fully define "their side" for me?

            • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 9:38:06 PM

              The point here is that I don't think you understand the nature of this conflict well enough to win it.

              The conservative mentality in this country does not have a good understanding of asymmetrical warfare. Both in Vietnam and Iraq, guerrilla-war and anarchist tactics have been used to cost us tremendously and confuse and hinder our warfare. We fight as though we are fighting a nation...but we aren't. Since the end of the Cold War we've been fighting ideologies without borders, not true armies. But we haven't changed our tactics, and we've also begun a practice of heavily occupying regions, and that I think is truly straying from America's strengths as a nation.

              America is made of good warriors...but we make poor occupationists. We are not well-suited to "democracy-building" projects or similar tactics, in my opinion, because our history is based in the creation of throwing off the yoke of a foreign government.

              Bush's biggest mistake was rejecting the Powell Doctrine - the Doctrine that had served America well for a decade in by making sure that America's international peacekeeping efforts had clearly definable objectives and a definite plan for withdrawal. I believe it would have served us for decades afterwards.

              There ARE actions necessary to fight the spread of modern terror...and they mostly don't have to do with huge troop movements and invasions and most especially occupations, which only inflame sentiments and promote anarchist sentiment in the occupied country. It has a lot to do with espionage, and Special Forces training, and a new breed of specially trained soldiers who are familiar with both antiterrorist combat training as well as language and cultural facility with the region, including the ability to pass through areas undetected and/or inflitrate enemy organizations via disguise.

              But I don't see American conservativism waging that conflict, or knowing how. And that's why I think a younger generation has to start setting our military policy, and why I speak out against simplistic understandings like "pick a side". I don't think you understand enough about "their side" to be able to body that statement.

              • Posted By: gregcovert @ 05/20/2009 9:25:29 AM

                Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 9:38:06 PM
                .
                America is made of good warriors...but we make poor occupationists. We are not well-suited to "democracy-building" projects or similar tactics, in my opinion, because our history is based in the creation of throwing off the yoke of a foreign government.

                South Korea, Germany, Japan?

              • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 10:09:28 PM

                Vigilance I agree with most of your points in this particular paragraph. I do not believe the Iraq invasion and occupation was necessarily about stopping terror. It was about stopping Saddam from sticking his thumb in the eye of the world. We had legitimate concerns with the potential of him selling or giving weapons of mass desruction to our enemies as a way to strike at us.
                The problem we had in Iraq is once we took out Saddam we were left with a giant power vacuum that drew in thousands of terrorists and thousands of local militias that rose up. We couldnt very well just leave the people of Iraq to those that would seize power by force so we were forced into a long and bloody occupation. Bush and his team made one critical error when they seized Iraq. They should of never disbanded the military. This left a million unemployed fighting aged men in a situation where they couldn't find work and the only skills they had could either be applied to mahem or banditry. The many local militias that sprang up were largely neighborhood watches staffed by former soldiers. Some worked with us some worked against us.
                I am sorry to ramble on but I felt it was necessary to demonstrate that I do in fact have a pretty good idea of what is and was going on. My ideas are not based on some right wing radio patriotism they are based on information gathered over years of study.
                Another problem we had under Bush and Rumsfeldt was a policy of not negotiating with people that they defined as terrorists. This is a terrible policy thank God that Petreaus convinced the leadership that the only way to a meaningful peace was to negotiate with the militias. The Militias have been the key to our progress in Iraq since Rumsfeldt departed.
                You are right when you question who is on what side. I believe in wholeheartedly attacking people that declare themselves our enemies and when a peace deal is struck I believe in wholeheartedly supporting that deal. Would I work with men who had killed Americans, yes I would in the interest of a sustainable peace.
                When I say choose a side I am simplifying a complex issue. But our soldiers are always on our side so they come first. If they have arrested someone I consider them the enemy until I see strong evidence to the contrary. I am willing to sacrifice innocent people to a few mistakes. That may be arrogant callous and even evil but I am just telling you my position.

                Anyway I have enjoyed bantering back and forth wth you and I appreciate the fact that you kept it civil. I wish you luck and look forward to arguing with you again at some point. Maybe over the effectivenss of the next republican president. :)

                • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 10:16:47 PM

                  Sure. Thanks for the debate. I'm out of time today or I'd have a response, but I agree with you on much of this.

                  I also am not one to blindly follow Obama's spending plan. I still support the man, but I have concerns too, and perhaps we can discuss those in another thread. I have a lot of respect for Obama, but I don't suborn my vote to him either, just so you can be aware of that. If I come to the conclusion that any of his spending plans are really going to be a waste, I won't support those plans. So we can talk about that at some point.

    • Posted By: lovedeedee @ 05/17/2009 3:21:47 PM

      And I will say to you, many prisoners in Gitmo are innocent, teenagers among them who were caught because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time ! but to people like you, no matter if they are innocent, they are muslims and to you all muslims are guilty ! Dumb !

      • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/17/2009 3:27:05 PM

        Not true at all Lovedeedee- Not all Muslims are guilty but if we captured them I will assume their was a good reason. The only cases of innocents being transferred to Gitmo were political moves made by some of our allies where they ratted out people that werent in fact bad guys. When we learned of these instances we released the prisoners. I am all for letting innocent people go but it would have to be a pretty extraordinary circumstance for me to allow the courts to be involved. Sometimes you have to trust the people on your side to make the tough decisions.

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 05/17/2009 9:37:36 PM

          "if we captured them I will assume there was a good reason"? I thought we Americans presumed innocent until proved guilty. You even admit that there are some cases of innocents being transferred to Gitmo as "political moves made by some of our allies". We should have some means to determine these people's innocence, in court or otherwise.

          I hear what you are saying. There are some serious national security concerns about how we go about doing this and we should definitely be careful. But these people should be tried in some appropriate fashion nonetheless. It is great that Obama is intending to do so. The fact that they were not tried under Bush is a national embarrassment.

          • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 12:45:01 AM

            Guilty until proven innocent is a right of our citizens not our enemies. The rules of combat are very different. I believe extradorniary efforts have been made to insure we do not capture and kill innocent civilians but it will happen. Usually when we capture an innocent civillian they are released but because our enemies hiide behind the civillians there will be times when those civillians are killed or wrongfully incarcerated. It is a tragedy of war that innocents are lost and I assure you that the US government has gone out of their way to ensure as few innocents are harmed as possible.

            How do you have a trial when the people who identified the prisoner may be dead, the people who arrested the prisoner are still in a combat zone, and the reason for the arrest was classified. You may think it can all be solved in an hour long episode of Afgan Legal but I assure you it is far more complicated than that.

            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 05/18/2009 1:58:24 AM

              "Guilty until proven innocent is a right of our citizens not our enemies. The rules of combat are very different."
              Fine, then they are Prisoners of War and we must follow the Geneva Convention. Note that Bush asserted that the Gitmo prisoners were not entitled to Geneva Convention protections and the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Regardless how you regard the Gitmo prisoners, there are rules on how we handle them and they do have rights. We can only hold these prisoners if we have a good reason and have gone through the proper protocol to protect their rights and make sure we have a good reason. I am glad Obama understands that. It is embarrassing that Bush did not.

              I know this isn't as simple as "Afgan Legal". There are serious national security concerns and other concerns. Court trials might not even be appropriate. But I trust Obama will find an appropriate way to deal with the situation, as so far he has given every indication that he will do so (and if his way is inappropriate, believe me I will complain).

              • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 3:44:04 PM

                Under the Geneva convention they could be executed for not wearing clear uniforms. Are you sure that is what you want to follow?

                • Posted By: bkrummel @ 05/18/2009 4:19:17 PM

                  Listen, I just want to you follow the proper rules and laws. I want the prisoners rights protected and I want there to be just cause for holding them or I want them released. I still expect the prisoners treated humanely. Follow the Geneva convention, treat them as having the same legal rights as US citizens, or follow some other more appropriate convention that the courts and international community recognize. I ultimately don't care. But please stop making excuses for holding them without rights. The "Afgan Legal" and "executed for not wearing clear uniforms" comments are simply excuses.

                  • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 4:36:33 PM

                    I believe they are treated humanely. I am not making excuses I am telling you the pitfalls of treating these men under the Geneva convention. They are not regular soldiers they fall into the category of spies. I do not believe we should execute these men but I do believe we should hold them until the war on terror or whatever we want to call it is over. Because our enemy does not wear uniforms we can not hold them as soldiers it is impractical to prove beyond any doubt that these guys are our enemies. If our soldiers assumed they were a threat that is good enough for me. If they were in the wrong place at the wrong time they are simply casualties of war. Its tragic but if the only way to avoid it is to put impossible standards on our military I will pass.

                    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 05/18/2009 5:37:57 PM

                      "If our soldiers assumed they were a threat that is good enough for me."

                      Again, we in the United States do not simply assume that people are a threat, we presume innocence until we know for sure. If our troops have reasonable justifications for believing they are a threat, we regard them as Prisoners of War and hold them in the appropriate manner. Regardless, someone's word that they are a threat, from a soldier or someone else, is simply not good enough; we need to make the appropriate steps that the prisoners are being justly held. Moreover, they do have rights and there is protocol and we have to honor that. We cannot simply hold people until some unspecified time vaguely stated "when the War on Terror is over", as that violates their rights and that itself is inhumane. I know our military can hold itself to the highest standards. I trust our President and military can find a reasonable and appropriate way to deal with these prisoners and guaranteeing them their rights.

                      I am glad that this is Obama's call and not your's or Bush's. Obama actually cares about the prisoners' rights and he also cares about protecting our country. I think Obama will find a good way to handle the situation, much more than Bush ever did.

                      • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 6:05:48 PM

                        These soldiers are not operating in the United states they are putting their lives on the line in a foreign country. I am not concerned one bit wtih the rights of our enemies. If it is discovered that a particular goat herder or school teacher is innocent I of course would let them go. But the burdon of proof is on them. And they would recieve absolutely no forum other than a military tribunal to make their case. You may be glad Obama values the rights of terrorists over your own rights to life but I do not. Caring about protecting the country and actually accomplishing the task are too different things. Obama may be your first exposure to empty promises and rhetoric and you may not recognize just how hollow his promises are yet but someday you may come to understand the difference between a brilliant speaker and a brilliant leader.

                        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 05/18/2009 7:23:44 PM

                          It seems that I happen to have more faith in our troops and our values than you do. I want our troops to engage and defeat our enemies while coming home to tell the tale and respect the fact that they put their lives on the line. But I think our troops can do so while upholding high moral and legal standards that we set for them (within reason of course) and upholding their oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies. I think our military and President can work together to find appropriate ways to deal with the Gitmo prisoners and honor their rights without risking national security or the lives of our soldiers. In fact, doing so will be better for our national security and the well-being of our troops who might one day be captured.

                          "Obama may be your first exposure to empty promises and rhetoric and you may not recognize just how hollow his promises are yet"
                          Believe me, I know Obama is a very gifted speaker and might offer promises that he does not keep. Obama has made a number of important promises (for example his promises on Gitmo) and I'm keeping a close eye out to see what promises Obama does not keep, as I intend to hold him to his promises. I may be willing to trust my President, but I am not naive.

                          Nonetheless, Obama's words do show that he understands the difficulty of this issue and that he knows what he is doing. For you to argue to the contrary is silly since you are arguing something obviously incorrect as anyone who read the article would know.

                    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 05/18/2009 6:00:30 PM

                      Did you even read the article? Do you even know what Obama intends to do? On the 3rd page Obama acknowledges that "this is an example of a hard problem" and that "You have some people who definitely should have been detained and should have been immediately charged, but were not and, in some cases, because of the manner in which evidence was obtained, it makes???it's going to be very difficult for us to prosecute them in Article III courts." Obama is not as naive as you claim.

                      Obama's goal is "that we are following core principles of due process; that individuals who are dangerous are still detained, but they are detained and/or tried in some fashion that has international and national legitimacy and is consistent with our Constitution." I agree totally with Obama on this and this is precisely what I've been trying to tell you. I don't know why you persist in arguing against this.

                      Obama seems to know what he is doing. You should probably trust him on this.

                      • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 7:23:32 PM

                        I do not believe it is practical or desireable to apply the standards of a court of law to a matter in which national defense is an issue and it occurs on foreign soil. I believe in due process but not for people captured in foreign countries.

                        I have enjoyed your arguments and I do see a lot of reason in your ideas. We just happen to disagree on the proper course of action. I am sure you are just as much a patriot as I am. I have appreciated the civil manner in which you have addressed my opinions and hope to argue again with you on some future topic. Good luck my friend I am sure we will disagree again someday.

                      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 05/18/2009 6:09:17 PM

                        One final remark. Why is it liberals like Obama and not the conservatives demanding that we act "consistent with our Constitution"? I thought the Republicans advocated for the Constitution? I guess Republicans don't really care about the Constitution when the War on Terror or social issues are involved. That's why I am thrilled Obama is our President.

                        • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 7:19:40 PM

                          The constitution applies to our citizens and no one else. That is our rule of law which we live under. The terrorists do not live by it nor should they derive any protection from it.

            • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 4:46:20 PM

              "Guilty until proven innocent is a right of our citizens not our enemies."

              It's a human principle. It implies that you're not going to assume someone else is guilty of something without having proof. You do it so that you don't declare war on or harm people who are innocent of what you're accusing them of and do exactly what we did at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq.

              I think this illustrates a problem with the mindset of the Bush Administration and its supporters here - they do not believe that Middle Easterners have the same human rights as Americans. I'm not sure they believe in treating Middle Easterners as human. It's a very deep schism, and the unresolved conflicts of a thousand years ago over the same damned kinds of things are the present day's loss.

              Also, as far as "war" goes, you have no idea who we're actually at war with. That's the other big problem with this policy...most of its proponents don't speak a word of Arabic, know any Arabs personally, and would be incapable of telling a Sunni from a Shiite from a Kurd from a Moroccan or any of them from a hole in the ground.

        • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 2:37:19 PM

          It's funny, I keep hearing the Gitmo apologists talking about "tough decisions", or "it's not easy but somebody has to do it".

          BULL ***.

          I don't think it wass very hard at all for people to sit at home and call for people to be tortured. I don't think it was tough in the least for the Bush Administration to build a "secret" prison outside of international law and human morality and throw people in there on a whim and beat them regularly and then neglect basic human needs until they got hepatits and couldn't lift their arms above their heads.

          Having the guts and the balls to face up to the process of interrogation without torture, knowing it produces better information, no matter how much you might hate the "other side"? THAT'S difficult. Maintaining morality and the Geneva Convention in the face of the atrocity of 9/11? THAT's tough. Actually KNOWING the human cost of war and caring about the young people you send to fight a battle instead of grinning and declaring yourself a "war President"? THAT takes courage.

          I don't think you or the Bush administration are very tough at all, or had to try very hard to hurt the people you hurt by supporting those kinds of policies. I think it was very easy policy instituted by a lot of sadists who take real pleasure in hurting other people badly, and was very much the path of least resistance. I don't see a speck of what I'd consider real guts anywhere to be found in that entire philosophy - I think it's cruel, cowardly, self-satisfied, and ignorant.

          • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 3:24:57 PM

            well vigilance your wrong. We are not saddists we are realists. We value our own lives above those of our enemies and their allies. We do not torture in the sense that our prisoners are not permanently damaged by our methods. Your attitude of being above all this stuff is a luxery afforded to you by those who got their hands dirty doing the things you were unwilling to do to preserve your own life and the life of other Americans.

            • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 4:36:53 PM

              Don't do me any favors I didn't ask for.

        • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 2:19:22 PM

          "Not true at all Lovedeedee- Not all Muslims are guilty but if we captured them I will assume their (sic) was a good reason."

          Oh, right. Because everything your government does, especially the military parts of it, is right and you're sure nobody ever takes action against the common good. Nobody ever abuses that power - after all, these are perfect soldiers, not flawed and imperfect human beings as we all are...

          It makes me sick to think of the kinds of abuses that go on behind that kind of blind faith. Justice must be blind. Faith never can be. Everything in this world is imperfect - the process of jailing especially so. If you don't want to face up to the fact that we tortured and imprisoned innocents in that war, then you have placed the facts subordinate to your unthinking loyalty. "I'm sure they must have had a reason" is NEVER an acceptable excuse to justify locking people up without due process.

          I suggest you go start looking up the history of the states that preceded the American and French Revolutions, and see exactly what kinds of unjust horrors of imprisonment and abuse of innocents took place under the regimes that preceded ours - the kinds of reasons that our Founding Fathers placed so much importance on due process in the first place.

        • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 05/18/2009 10:16:02 AM

          yeah like osama bin ladens driver? is he a terrorist. no didnt think so

          • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 1:23:48 PM

            Do you think Osama Bin laden just hired his driver through Craigs list? His driver was also his body guard so yes this man is a terrorist.

          • Posted By: ctruskey @ 05/18/2009 11:31:27 AM

            Let's just say they are all POWs and will be released when the war on terrorism is over, of course that won't happen because the Obama folks won't ever use that phase so they will be in prision unti they die. I don't see a lot of people around the world wanted this innocent people back.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 05/20/2009 8:31:50 AM

    Mr. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, one of the framers of the Constitution of the United States, published his diary in which he says:

    "Dr. Benjamin Franklin, a venerable figure weighed down by years and wisdom, leaned one hand on his staff, the other on the table and said, 'There is a greater menace to these United States of America than the strictly Roman....

    'This greater menace, gentlemen, is the Jew!

    'In whatever country Jews have settled in any great numbers they have lowered its moral tone; they have depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves; have not assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which this nation is founded by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within a state, and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially.

    .. 'If you do not exclude them from the United States in his Constitution, in less than two hundred years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land, change our form of government for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives, our substance, jeopardized our liberty, and put into it our best thoughts.

    Dr. Benjamin Franklin

    Jews in the Bush Administration

    * Paul Dundes Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary, Department of Defense

    * Richard Perle - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.

    * Ari Fleischer - White House Press Secretary

    * Josh Bolten - Deputy Chief of Staff

    * Ken Melman - White House Political Director

    * Jay Lefkowitz - Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council

    * David Frum - Speechwriter

    * Brad Blakeman - White House Director of Scheduling

    * Dov Zakheim - Undersecretary of Defense (Controller)

    * I. Lewis Libby - Chief of Staff to the Vice President

    * Adam Goldman - White House Liaison to the Jewish Community

    * Chris Gersten - Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS

    * Elliott Abrams - Director of the National Security Council's Office for Democracy, Human Rights ( !!! ) and International Operations

    * Mark D. Weinberg - Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs

    * Douglas Feith - Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

    * Michael Chertoff - Head of the Justice Department's criminal division

    * Daniel Kurtzer - Ambassador to Israel ( !!! )


    * Cliff Sobel - Ambassador to the Netherlands

    * Stuart Bernstein - Ambassador to Denmark

    * Nancy Brinker - Ambassador to Hungary

    * Frank Lavin - Ambassador to Singapore

    * Ron Weiser - Ambassador to Slovakia

    * Mel Sembler - Ambassador to Italy

    * Martin Silverstein - Ambassador to Uruguay

  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 12:56:48 PM

    "There is a sobriety that comes with a decision like that because you have to expect that some of those young men and women are going to be harmed in the theater of war."

    This is a thoughtful change in attitude from the grinning eagerness of the Bush administration to send our kids to war.

    I damned near feel tears coming to my eyes at the thought that our Commander-In-Chief is once again a man who feels the pain and loss of every young person who might lose his/her health or life in a conflict.

    This is what a "war President" really is - a man who would rather not have to send other people's children into danger if he had to, and who really understands the cost of conflict, but still makes the decisions that his post requires him to.

    Maybe now we can put Bush's callous, egotistical enthusiasm for endangering the lives of young men and women both here and in the Middle East behind us.

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 4:10:51 PM

      Do you really believe there was a grinning eagerness in the Bush administration to send our troops into harms way? The thought is ridiculous and if anything demonstrates the lack of understanding the Media and American people have for the Bush administration.

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 4:39:24 PM

        This has nothing to do with the "media", this is straight off Bush's expression in the press conference during which he announced the Afghanistan war back in 2001. Go watch the tapes; he was grinning ear-to-ear.

        • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 4:48:06 PM

          The only thing the "media" did was to throw a camera on it and broadcast it.

          • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 05/18/2009 5:31:18 PM

            Nevermind the overwhelming majority, inluding the troops who volunteered to serve, that were also eager to let the world know we would not accept what happened on 9/11. Lets revise history and make it sound like Bush was a maniac who acted without thought and all he wanted to do was put his countrymen in harms way, that way we can legitimize Obama's "thoughts" and "ideas".

            • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 10:12:37 PM

              I didn't say any of that sh*t. What I said was that the expression on Bush's face disturbed me then, and the memory of it still disturbs me now. It looked like the expression of a man congratulating himself for something. And I definitely remember the edges of his face being turned up, not down.

              It's all subjective, but I have trouble respecting any leader who takes his people to war with a smile.

              • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/19/2009 12:59:31 PM

                Maybe it would help you to know the smile was a release of tension after 2 months of doing nothing we were finally acting. And the president made the announcement after operations had begun and the operations were going very smoothly. A man who smiles while he fights is projecting confidence. Not that Bush was fighting but it was his job to be the face of the military and the American people and he was demonstrating just how ready and willing we were to enter the fray.

                • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/19/2009 6:26:44 PM

                  I don't support anyone who signs off on a war with a smile when he'll be far from the front lines. Ever.

                  That's not the man to trust with my friends' lives, or their childrens', or anyone else's childrens. And if you want to smile as you send people off somewhere that they could be brutally killed, far from home, I don't trust or support you either.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 05/19/2009 11:57:22 AM

    USA must STOP his Unconditonal Love towards Isreal immedately for the Sake of its Own Natonal Security,We all Know that Isrealis are indirectly happy to turn many Islamic fanatics to become "Terrorists"with their cleverly creations now emerging terorists existence looks like a real security treat to Isrealis and the world.
    A country with Nuclear Power capabilities cannot be compares with neigboring countries that doesn't have proper arms,let alone Nuclear Power,with that reasons makes them continously Slaughters his neigbors.Now we all understood why the German's Nazi saw and single hand out them from other many various ethnic group as very dangerous minds capable with gven opportunity to be brillant manipulators .Real facts.

    A Zionist,a only single country with Nuclear Power capability in Middle-East with USA blessing and total support by USA continously with financial ,Arsenal Supports.
    Lucky now President Obama start to realise this Huge mistakes made by past US Presidents President Obama intiatate Isreal to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty directly to Visiting Isrealis Prime Minister now to try correct US past.

    Afganistan,Iran,Iraq,many US former Allies,now becoming US enemies,Most recently Pakistan,Iran under real pressure by Islamic Extremist ,What worrying Facts now Countries like Turkey,Eygpt,Jordan,Saudi Arabia, a very Close US partner start to crack up if USA doesn't make a Change 180 turn around or we might likely to Loose them as Amercan close Allies.

    Today's Turkey is a part of the Islamic world, supporter of Russian Eurasian policy, a kind neighbor and partner of its historical opponents, Iran and Syria. The quadrilateral alliance is here but its members are different. This is an alliance of Eurasian states: Russia - Turkey - Iran - Syria.
    Since the end of the last decade, Russia has made desperate efforts to return to Middle Eastern politics as a superpower. Thus it has, for example, strengthened relations with Iran and Syria.
    This policy reached its apogee when, in defiance of Washington's fierce protests, Moscow cooperated with Tehran in the nuclear sphere, and in a pointedly royal manner embraced Bashar Asad during his visit to Russia in January 2005, writing off Syria's debt and signing the agreement on missile deliveries to Damascus (see below).
    Turkey, in its turn, is panicking after Saddam Hussein's overthrow, fearing creation of a Kurdish state in Iraq. Aspiring to prevent such a succession of events, Ankara has been drawn to Iran and Syria. Sworn enemies turned if not friends, then allies, in almost no time.
    Iran has committed to adding the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) to its " terrorist organizations" list. Turkey has done the same concerning the Iranian group "Mojahedin Halk". The parties have announced an upcoming doubling of the volume of their trade..
    American attempts to prevent this visit and the subsequent rapprochement between recent enemies was a failure.

  • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 05/19/2009 11:51:35 AM

    Seems to me Obama may well be going the way of Carter.
    Carter recieved the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in bringing peace to the Middle East but failed in his effort to resurect the economy that he inherited from Nixon and has hardley enjoyed the respect and prestige he deserved.
    Like the man said "Its the economy stupid"
    the sad part of that is the economy of the US will continued to decline to the level Globalization demands; IE: equality of Americans working class and the working class of China and India.
    And of course the possiblity of yet another nut job Republican administration that will again hasten that decline.

  • Posted By: robinhood @ 05/18/2009 9:20:42 PM

    damn ths KEYBOARD got stuck and srew-up.....go to Hell anyway

  • Posted By: robinhood @ 05/18/2009 9:12:23 PM

    Bush went to Haravard,Yale? damn right he can afford it anywhere World Universitythe Queston How Much contribution you want to make made 5 ml;lon,10mllon? you can Go cambrdge or Oxford too,ncludng the Moon IF he wants to,Many World Leader sand Monarchy "SONS AND DAUGHTERS" can select which ELITE school even with Half the BRAIN they able to go this elite University.,With his Influential Familiy background,His Grandfather Presscott Bush as US,Senator and ,His Father as US.President,but they didn't able to cover the Americans Eyes to distinguish between a BOLT or a NUT.

  • Posted By: lovedeedee @ 05/17/2009 3:18:43 PM

    Obama is doing the best he can... he inheritated 2 wars and an economic disaster ! You should have known that Bush was not the president to vote for, but you still voted for him.. I never did, because I knew better ! You got what you asked for !

    You go Obama !

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/17/2009 3:30:24 PM

      The best he can? since when is that good enough. Maybe its good enough to pass highschool now a days but we need a competent leader who will succeed not an A for effort from a socialist.

      • Posted By: robinhood @ 05/18/2009 8:54:16 PM

        SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM,IS SOCIALIST IDEALOGY...you fool...

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 1:13:49 PM

        The level by which I am starting dismiss any comment that has the words "socialism" or "socialist" in it has reached a very high magnitude. It's reminding me of chalk scraping on a blackboard.

        • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 3:52:01 PM

          You may find the constant references to socialism irritating but that shouldn't deter you from either embracing it with the new president or fighting it with the conservatives. Socialism is a cancer that will destroy our country if we allow it to take hold. Social security and Medicare have already nearly bankrupted themselves and will soon drag this country to new lows economically. Expanding on this ignorant utopian vision is the fastest path to insolvency.

          • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 8:47:07 PM

            So talk about Social Security. Talk about Medicare. Talk about social spending in very concrete terms, and you might get somewhere. I don't agree with everything Obama does and he's taken positions lately that concern me. I still have respect for him and support him, so far, but if you wanted to bring up actual figures and programs we might actually have a talk.

            And I don't want to hear the usual line about "OMG 787 BILLION DOLLARS IN BORROWING!!!" We had just as high a debt as a percentage of GDP during World War II (higher, actually) and came out fine. Talk about debt-to-GDP ratio. Provide some real ways to gracefully demolish Social Security - I'm on board with that.

            You'll have more success if you go after specific stimulus bill provisions, or financial plans, or et cetera than you will using "socialism" like a buzzword, because as a buzzword it's been very tainted by the extremism of Limbaugh, Beck, O' Reilly and some of the other prominent pundits who prefer populist fervor over civility.

      • Posted By: rednews72 @ 05/17/2009 6:25:09 PM

        What world are you living in man? Do you not remember the state of this country at the beginning of the year? All Bush problems which Obama has been dealing with. Competence doesn't even begin to describe the way Obama deals with things. Excellence is more like it. I wonder what people like you are going to say when the economy gets going again, when our troops are no longer in danger in Iraq, and when you see the worlds respect for America return (it already has). We're leaders again instead of chumps in most of the worlds eyes. Why cant you guys get it???

        • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 05/18/2009 5:41:04 PM

          What a joke. Leaders again instead of chumps? America has led the world in almost every respect for quite some time, and has never been the land of "chumps". Please give me an example of how you think Obama has improved America's image. In Cuba, no. Venezuela, no. France, no. Iran, no. China, no. He has cashed in on zero of his reported victories from the G20. Somehow this is improvement?

          The economy will recover at some point, but Obama is doing what he can to slow it down. He is also ensuring that the growth will be slow for the next 30 years while he is throwing away the tax dollars of Americans that aren't even born yet.

          You also appear to be praising Barack for is stance in Iraq, even though it is strikingly similar to Bush's, and nothing like he claimed it would be in his campaign. Interesting...

        • Posted By: ctruskey @ 05/18/2009 11:49:50 AM

          The United States of American has always lead the world since WWII, that hasn't changed no matter who is in the White House including the last eight years. I deal with people around the world almost daily and I have a pretty good idea what the common folks in those countries think of America and I've been dealing with people from around the world for almost 30 years now and I know we have never been chumps.

        • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/17/2009 9:19:28 PM

          Blaming Bush for everyproblem is not solving anything. Bush was President during 911 and Katrina and unprecedented Fraud in the Housing Market. You can say he handled the situations poorly but they were hardly his fault. The financial collapse was a direct result of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae perpetrating a ffraud on the worlds banking system. Bush overlooked the issue because he was distracted by two wars and every time a republican tried to introduce regulations to Freddie and Fannie they were stopped cold by the Democrats. Look up the You TUbe videos on Freddie and Fannie they are very revealing. The Wars were initiated as a response to a very real threat. Many people believe they were a mistake but no one can say that Bush did not protect the country from a second attack. Katrina was a devastating financial blow it was the first time a large american city had been completely decimated since the Civil War. The financial and emotional impact of that cannot be ignored when assessing the state of the Union. There were many factors which contributed to the mess Obama inherited and to his credit he has addressed many of the problems but his solutions leave a lot to be desired in the eyes of us conservatives. Throwing trillions of dollars or our Kids future earnings to handle a problem is irresponsible and reckless. You can not pull yourself out of Debt by spending money you do not have. Keynes was wrong in his theories back in the depression and they are still wrong today. If you balance the budget reign in congress and pay as you go for wars our generation will suffer but the country will become stronger. If we put it off we are like a credit card holder that pays for their groceries on Credit while they continue to make the minimum payment but wont give up Cable TV, Cell Phones, Eating Out, and new shoes every few weeks.

      • Posted By: TruthForward @ 05/17/2009 4:11:54 PM

        President Professor Obama is very competent.

  • Posted By: robinhood @ 05/18/2009 8:39:49 PM

    The United States government classification system is established under Executive Order 13292, the latest in a long series of executive orders on the topic. Issued by President George W. Bush in 2003, Executive Order 13292 replaces earlier executive orders on the topic and lays out the system of classification, declassification, and handling of national security information generated by the U.S. government and its employees and contractors, as well as information received from other governments.[2]

    The desired degree of secrecy about such information is known as its sensitivity. Sensitivity is based upon a calculation of the damage to national security that the release of the information would cause. The United States has three levels of classification: confidential, secret, and top secret. Each level of classification indicates an increasing degree of sensitivity. Thus if one holds a top-secret security clearance, one is allowed to handle information up to the level of top-secret including secret and confidential information. If one holds a secret clearance, one may not then handle top-secret information, but may handle secret and confidential classified information.

    By law, information may not be classified merely because it would be embarrassing or to cover illegal activity; information may only be classified to protect national security objectives.

    crimminal HILTER or WORLD LEADERS should have thought this special protected EXECUTIVE ORDERS SYSTEM under German's country SECURITY from any FOREIGN INTERNATIONAL COURTS gettng HOLD ANY HIS CRIMMINAL ORDER UNDER classfied Country TOP SECURITY Documents.CRIMMINAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS wth this VITAL Court Documents Evidence there's NO CASE..

  • Posted By: kjair @ 05/18/2009 5:13:15 PM

    Yow, what a lot of people with diverging agendas resorting to smear topics on issues not related to a damn thing but their personal hangups and prejudices. Anybody want to talk about the article and the fact that Obama laid out the reason why the prisoners at Guantanamo who are suspected of being terrorists cannot be tried in American courts?? It requires comprehenshion i.e cannot b tried under article IV and reading between the lines i.e. if they cannot be tried in our judicial system because they were coerced into giving evidence harmful to their case (torture), then the only alternative is a military tribunal. You can then make the deduction that this is precisely why the Bush administration decided to use military tribunals, as they knew that any court of law would have thrown their asses out because of coerced evidence. This is a big deal and gives a lot of insight on the previous eight years and some of their decision making. It also proves to Bush bashers that these folks were not stupid but rather made mistakes in the interest of national security then tried to recover the fumble. To all those "higher than thous' on either side of the aisle, please use your limited resources to put yourself in teh position of both people who have been incarcerated wrongfully at Gitmo, many of who have been released, and those on teh other side making teh decisions in teh aftermath of 911. We went too far in many instances and now we have to clean up the mess, as we always do and have done in our history alonjg with every other nation on this earth. Problem is, innocent people pay with their blood!

  • Posted By: dayan007 @ 05/17/2009 3:11:50 PM

    Bravo, finally a president with some moral fiber.

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/17/2009 3:28:42 PM

      IF by moral fiber you mean a president that will make us all Crap I would agree.

      • Posted By: rednews72 @ 05/17/2009 6:08:20 PM

        He won't make all of us crap, just the ignorant people like you that want our country to "fail" while he's President. You guys really look foolish at this point. Maybe you should go to Texas and secede with the other 51% there. Show us how "patriotic" you are!

        • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/17/2009 9:23:25 PM

          Wait until you digest that Moral Fiber of his you will be crapping right along with us. Maybe it will be healthy who knows. Perhaps we have been constipated by too much freedom for too long and your big government enema is just what this country needs. I of course feel that we are better off to stick with a free market but maybe the people who have run Social security into the ground, Medicare into insolvency, the DMV, The war in Iraq are exactly who should be in charge of your medical decisions, the Auto Companies, The Banks and your schools.

          • Posted By: Striken @ 05/18/2009 10:32:34 AM

            Big government? Try the Homeland Security Act for one. Government has gotten bigger in the past 8 years then it's ever been; the only problem was it was a collection of morons in charge who managed to completely screw it up. A "free market"? You mean like the kind where banks can do whatever they want and ruin thousands upon thousands of people in the process? Great idea. The war in Iraq? A conflict invented by the Republican party (WMD's are there, we promise!), and finally being cleaned up by the Democrats.

            Apparently some people really do want to see this county fail - at least there is no longer one of them in charge as well.

            • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 4:51:07 PM

              Those big evil banks that oppressed us all by what? Loaniing money to people that drove home values through the roof. Because the Government wanted to insure that every person in America could buy a home rather they could afford it or not. The banks didnt force anyone to do anything they merely loaned the money. Its your own fault if you bought more house than you could afford and are now upside down because you decided it would be a good idea to take out a home equity line and buy that boat you always wanted.

            • Posted By: ctruskey @ 05/18/2009 11:17:09 AM

              Don't forget the Dems want the Department of Home Land Security first, then Bush went along. I watch my money very carefully I don't need government to do it, however if congress was doing oversight as they are suppose to do a lot of this mess could of been avoided. You seem to think the Executive Branch runs the country, take a government 101 class please

  • Posted By: FRwritings @ 05/17/2009 2:08:46 PM

    Beautiful MIND!!!... Absolutely Brilliant!!! I AM SO DAMN PROUD TO HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT CAN ACTUALLY BEHAVE, THINK AND TALK LIKE A NORMAL INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING. Sir, This MESS that you've inherited from the BUSH administration, WE WILL GIVE YOU TIME TO SOLVE. You said it would take about a year, then a year it will be. We will hold you accountable by early next January (i would hold you responsible by late summer 2011 if you ask me the man needs 2 years to fix this damn mess) YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB!!!! KEEPING DOING YOU'RE THING!!! You are representing the AMERICAN PEOPLE(left & right) in a good light around the world. ONE THING: Can you please talk more about god and you're christian religion? thank you sir, other then that... YOU'RE FREAKIN' AWESOME!!!!

    • Posted By: lovedeedee @ 05/17/2009 3:26:56 PM

      Please, leave your god and religion out of politics.. it does not belong there unless you want to go live in another country.

      Let's end all this nonsense right now. If you are for imposing YOUR religious beliefs then you are in the wrong country. I know this is a mindblower for you, but this country was founded on not being ruled by religious zealotry mixed with government. The Constitution expressly forbids any religion from imposing laws advocated or enacted by government. The Founding Fathers essentially despised Christianity and religion was expressly put between a wall called Separation of Church and State....that is one the KEY aspects of the founding of this country.... WE DID THIS ON PURPOSE AS A MESSAGE THAT GOVERNMENTS CAN, WILL AND SHOULD OPERATE FREE FROM RELIGION DOGMA. And don't even try to say our laws are God's laws. Our laws are based in English Common Law which was introduced from what Saxons had establised. English Common Law was in place in great part well before there were ANY Christians in England. They didn't arrive til the 7th Century. Amazing what you learn when you consider where mommy, daddy and the priest got their information from. Don't believe me, see for yourself and if this still doesn't convince you to practice your beliefs and respect the beliefs of others, then I must ask you, "Why do you hate America?" Do you hate freedom? Why?

      The Constitution of the United States of America:
      The First Amendment
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

      Article VI, Section 3
      "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
      President of the United States John Adams, a founding father:

      Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
      "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
      John Adams: "The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
      Thomas Jefferson, you may have heard of him:

      "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

      Jefferson: "...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry."

      • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/17/2009 5:36:08 PM

        And Why should christians be forced to leave their beliefs at home while making laws??? Environmentalists impose their beliefs. Humanists impose their beliefs. Just what would you base laws on??? What is right and fair by whose standards. Yours and yours alone.

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 05/18/2009 2:45:33 PM

          Because there is a little thing called the 1st Amendment which protects the religious freedoms of non-Christians. In particular, there is the Establishment Clause that states that the government may not establish religion. If congress or the people enact laws based on their religious beliefs, then they are effectively establishing religion and violating the Constitution because everyone else needs to follow that law, whether they share those religious beliefs or not.

          There is a Christian majority and thus Christians have a special obligation to be mindful to not vote based on their religious beliefs because they can effectively pass laws based on the Christian religion. (Note that EVERYONE still has a responsibility to keep their religion out of politics.) Let me give you an example. In California were I live Prop 8 banning gay marriage was recently passed. I cannot prove this, but many of the arguments for thinking homosexuality is wrong or should not be publicly acknowledged are rooted in the Christian and other religions. You are forcing my gay friends to adopt your values though they might not share them.

          There is nothing in the Constitution banning the use of science, information, or political beliefs while making laws. Environmentalists and Humanists are welcome to make laws based on science and their political beliefs. Despite what you may think, science is not a religion. Science makes no claims on religion or the existence of god and thus is a discipline distinct from religion. Some scientists are religious, others are not. To suggest that good science be left out of policy debates because you think it is religion is just absurd. If you want to instead want to dispute the validity of the science, you are welcome to do so, but that is entirely different.

          • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 3:11:37 PM

            bkrummel my point is that Religious people have the same right to influence the law as everyone else. All beliefs are rooted in something. I think we should all use Science, religion and life experience to determine the right course of our country but to completely dismiss one religion or all religions because you disagree with their premise is just absurd. They pay the same taxes live in the same houses and abide by the same legal system you do. You can argue against thier beliefs all day that is your right as an American but you can not deny their right to push laws that follow their core values. I personally am in favor of Civil Unions and even Gay Marriage. But my Christian friends seem to be inundated with hatred simply because they attempt to form a civil society that lives life the way they think is best. I do not believe science is a religion but I do know that science is not perfect. The problem appears when someone attempts to manipulate the data to produce specific results and no one questions the results. This is where science becomes like a religion the uniinformed blindly follow the science of AL Gore or other scientists that don't even adequately test their results. (I know Gore isnt a scientist but he is a leading prophet of the Environmentalist movement pushing bad science on the masses.) Again how do we determine what is good science and what is simply an agenda based scientific manipulation.

            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 05/18/2009 4:11:03 PM

              On the issue of science, I think you are arguing that some are using bad science. Some actually do say that they think science is religion, so be mindful of comparing science to religion. If you want to question whether environmentalism is based on good science, this is a welcome concern especially if you can support it. I have similar concerns and don't like Al Gore either.

            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 05/18/2009 4:10:53 PM

              I do not intend to argue against their religion, as I respect their rights to practice whatever religion they chose. I do not intend dismiss is merely because I disagree with them. I agree that they are tax paying citizens just like me and are entitled to bring their views and experiences into policy discussions. I am concerned about something very specific, the role of religion in public policy, and I think there is a big difference between religious beliefs influencing policy and other beliefs influencing policy.

              My point is precisely that we live in a country of many different religious views and the religious freedoms of people are protected by the 1st Amendment. As a result, laws should only be passed if people can follow the law without violating their religious beliefs or adopting religious beliefs that they do not hold. Any other law is infringing upon people's 1st Amendment religious rights, not to mention is rude and intolerant. To dismiss a religion's role in public policy because it infringes upon someone's rights is not at all absurd. We are a nation of diversity and laws and I expect religious people to respect that, even if it means keeping their religious beliefs out of laws. Most religious people do this just fine. I think the Religious Right and their Christian supporters do not do this. In fact the Religious Right's agenda overtly pushes Judeo-Christian values into public policy and thereby violates the 1st Amendment rights of non-Christians.

              "But my Christian friends seem to be inundated with hatred simply because they attempt to form a civil society that lives life the way they think is best."
              They are "inundated with hatred" because they are infringing upon people's rights. The way to "live life the way they think is best" is to go to church and adopt the Christian religion and abstain from activities including drinking a lot of alcohol, using any drugs including marijuana, having any premarital sex, or engaging in any homosexual behavior. Trying "to form a civil society" that lives this way using laws clearly violates the 1st Amendment. I've heard their excuses about a civil society, protecting their kids, etc. and it is all an excuse to force others to live according to their values whether others share those values or not. They intend to limit activities that me and/or my friends enjoy and find nothing wrong with. We aren't harming the moral fabric of society, we are just living our lives differently than your Christian friends want us to. Of course, your Christian friends only have concerned themselves with what they think "is best" and completely ignored the fact that many others feel differently about what "is best".

        • Posted By: 40YearR @ 05/17/2009 6:51:26 PM

          For one thing, christians have a history of imposing their beliefs on others, from stockades, to witch hunts, to tarring and feathering, and even multiple centuries long inquisitions involving torture and burnings at the stake, for failing to swear fealtiy to the (since rejected) 'beliefs' of the time, even for being so heretical as proving that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.

          As Americans, we have Constitutional protections from government imposing religious beliefs and practices. Our founding fathers knew of the problems of the then current 'beliefs' and 'practices', and of historical ones. And they protected every American from them. Constitutionally.

          Only religious zealots or the ignorant do not recognize how fundamentally ignorant it is to not know this, or how fundamentally unAmerican it is to persist in trying to impose religion on anyone, by government action or otherwise.

          Thank you Founding Fathers for protecting us this way. Your wisdom in knowing this necessity continues to be proven.

          • Posted By: ctruskey @ 05/18/2009 11:22:48 AM

            Please read your history, this country was much more religious at the time of the founding fathers then it is now and they also knew that their beliefs were very important in the founding ideas they had for this country. There stand against the establishment of "one" religion came about due to the intolerances in Europe toward the different Christian beliefs and didn't want that here. They were not afraid of religion they were afraid of the government imposing one religion on all the people as it was in a lot of countries in Europe.

        • Posted By: rednews72 @ 05/17/2009 6:18:22 PM

          He didn???t say leave your beliefs at home ONEPOKER. He said leave religion out of it. Our founding fathers which came from diverse background and religions realized very quickly that America would not work if religion was part of the state. That goes for ANY religion, whether it be Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, or any other religion. Bringing your beliefs on topics such as the environment is fine. Saying that your God told you how to vote on laws is absurd, or saying that you are right because the bible told you so is absurd.
          Another thing. Religions are sub-cults of the whole American culture. Environmentalists are an interest group. They don???t impose their beliefs. They act upon empirical data to change societies HABITS, not to impose a belief. Science and data have nothing to do with ???belief???. Religions ask us to take leaps of faith. Not science!

          • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/17/2009 9:04:16 PM

            RedNews your science is as much a religion as a christians bible. It has been shown time and again that the Data does not support global warming as being caused by men. Yet everytime any refuting evidence is brought forward the Zealots of Global warming shout them down. The most compelling evidence I have seen is the increasing temperatures on Mars corresponding with our own. This is strong evidence that the temperature fluctuations have more to do with solar patterns than any man made gasses yet I am called a fool for not subscribing to the SCIENCE.

            I do not believe any religion should impose its laws on America but they have every right to enter the system and attempt to get their laws past just as you and I do.

            • Posted By: Striken @ 05/18/2009 10:39:04 AM

              No, actually they don't. It is clearly written in the constitution that religion can have no bearing what-so-ever on our government and it's laws. Seems our founding fathers were a lot smarter then you for realizing what a disaster that would cause.

        • Posted By: 40YearR @ 05/17/2009 6:46:10 PM

        • Posted By: nyecop @ 05/17/2009 5:40:27 PM

          Muslim Law you Infidel!

    • Posted By: lovedeedee @ 05/17/2009 3:28:35 PM

      Religion does not belong in american politics.. It is against the constitution ! the founding fathers were not religious and they said leave religion at home.

  • Posted By: Still Free in the USA @ 05/18/2009 9:29:40 AM

    What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members ??? on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven???t said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn???t! Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million ??? not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven???t you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.

    • Posted By: purple_state @ 05/18/2009 10:17:06 AM

      Dear Free,
      Please read the Constitution of the United States of America, it clearly states that Congress not the President has the power of the purse in this country. Your beef needs to be taken to your congressmen not to the president, and I understand how you feel and what you're going through with these economic times (been cut back to 3 days a week with a baby on the way) so I'm not patronizing you in any way. But write your congressmen they're the ones in charge of the money.

      • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 3:36:46 PM

        Shouldn't it be the citizens who are in charge of the money?

  • Posted By: iceppppp @ 05/17/2009 4:15:41 PM

    Posted By: onepoker @ 05/17/2009 3:33:22 PM
    It is easy to appear brilliant when your audience is ignorant.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    LOL .... Your argument self defeating, onepoker. Bush didn't sound brilliant or even smart to ANYONE. Not even to dumb/ignorant people. I'm glad to have a president who does sound brilliant, even to his detractors. P.S. You don't get to the top of your class in Harvard law school or become a constitutional law professor without being brilliant, you retard.

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/17/2009 5:16:39 PM

      He wasnt at the top of his class. He was President of the Harvard law Review which is a political position not an academic one. And I never claimed Bush was anything close to brilliant. I am a conservative not a Bush Devotee.

      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 05/17/2009 7:21:47 PM

        BS. Only the best and brightest even get into Harvard. There are so many exceptional candidates of every race or ethnicity that 'affirmative action' is not a factor. They actually recruit academically superior candidates.

        You cannot volunteer or just join Law Review. Only the most academically qualified are admitted; that alone is one of the highest distinctions and honors a law student can acheive.

        The President is elected, yes, by the members of that Law Review. Think about it. The best, brightest and most competitive law students at the most competitibe law school in the world elected him.

        Only your ignorance and/or your prejudices allow you to believe that 'politics' or any ethic consideration, other than superiorty, would ever be a consideration in who would even be considered as a candidate for the position. I didn't go to Harvard, but I went through the process elsewhere at a competitive schoo.. BS on the suggestion that these proud, competitive, exceptional acheivers would ever vote for anything other than evident superiority.

        • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/17/2009 8:57:51 PM

          I never attributed his position to affirmative action. I believe he is an exceptional individual but he was not top of his class. That is a misconception that is repeated often. yes he was a bright and gifted student that grew into a bright and gifted man. He has an agenda I disagree with and he has harmed our country considerably it has nothing to do with the color of his skin or rather he recieved any special hands up from anywhere.

          • Posted By: ep122 @ 05/18/2009 3:22:54 PM

            He graduated Magna c u m Laude, which means he graduated in the top 10% of his class. This is a known fact. Deal with it.

          • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 1:05:02 PM

            Say that in the first place instead of making comments that you can't actually body about how "ignorant" Obama's audience is.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/17/2009 11:43:10 PM

      So, what is it we're exactly ignorant of?

      How many languages do you speak? What subjects did you study in college? What's your career experience? What's your qualification to claim you can diagnose ignorance in others?

      • Posted By: ctruskey @ 05/18/2009 11:56:12 AM

        President Bush went to Harvard and Yale didn't he? I know some smart people that were the top of their class in college but they lacked common sense, and their book smarts didn't relate to well to the real world and as a constitutional law professor only means you didn't practice law in the real world. I had business professor in college that never ran a business or even had worked in a business or on wall street they had been academics all there lifes so they lacked the real world experience to back up what they were teaching. I had one professor who did run a business at the same time he was a professor, which he did for no pay from the college, and he was the best business professor I had.

        • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 1:20:44 PM

          Those who can't do teach. The colleges are littered with intellectuals that never went out and got a job.

        • Posted By: Fernadez @ 05/18/2009 1:02:00 PM

      • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 1:13:08 PM

        I speak Engllish and a little bit of Arabic. I was a Near eastern studies Major in College studying things like the Iran Iraq war and how political relations have evolved in the middle east. My business or life experience can be summed up as varied. I have done everything from carve and shape Granite Countertops, to Work for the US Postal Service as a Carrier. Most Recently I have been earning a living trading stocks on the exchange specifically Banking stocks. I have a fundamental understanding of the real estate market from being a successful realtor for several years and have applied that knowledge to analyzing bank holdings. Does this resume mean I suffer from ADHD probably but I live a good life and enjoy everythng I do.

        Does that qaulify me to judge any individual or group as ignorant? Of Course not. It was just a snide remark reacting to the absolute shallowness of our media iin dealing with this president.

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 05/18/2009 12:14:32 AM

        That was directed at onepoker, by the way.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse