BoatBanter.com - The failed Obama administration

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - The failed Obama administration (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/101773-re-failed-obama-administration.html)

The failed Obama administration

On Jan 22, 12:44*pm, HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:44:08 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Well, I expect the Obama admin will be significantly more "honest"
than the Bush admin. I do not expect perfection. I do not expect
Obama, Biden, Clinton, or Holder will tell bold-faced lies to the
American people about what their admin is doing and why.
Clinton already has.

How can a person or administration be "more honest"?

Either you are honest or you are not.
It's not quite that black or white.

Well, yes and no.

Let's take the Gitmo deal that President Obama has promised to close.

In a year.

Maybe more than that.

But he is closing it.

When is up in the air. *:)

So that's one example of the truth of closing down Gitmo not being
exactly true.

How about torture. *President Obama is closing down *"black" stations,
ending "harsh" interrogation techniques restricting interrogation to
the Army Field Manual which, as I remember, has something like 20
techniques for gathering information.

Unless, of course, it's absoutely necessary to use other, more
creative techniques.

That's another example of the truth of restricting harsh interrogation
not being exactly true.

So in a sense, Harry is right.

The Gitmo gulag will be shut down in a year or less. Period. Not more.
More likely, less.

Doubtful.

What's the holdup? Disposition of those being held. As soon as that is
worked out, the prison will close.

Doubtful.

The Army Field Manual has been revised since your days in the service.
It no longer is distributed on clay tablets. Further, it likely is to
be revised some one in that area, since some of the changes forced
during the Bush mis-administration were not exactly to the military's
liking.

Just means a few more illegal combatants will end up dying on the battle
field.

Keep in mind it is the professional military that objected to the
harsh tactics.

True, but the CIA didn't.

The Israelis have an interesting set of techniques with which they
torture their suspects: they set them up in dorms, let them do their
own cooking, allow contact family and conjugal visits, kill them with
kindness, and get a hell of a lot more information than we do.

Do you have proof of this?

It's been covered in the printed and television news several times. It's
not my problem if you are unaware of this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's unaware of it because you are Lobsta' boating the facts... snerk

The failed Obama administration

On Jan 22, 12:58*pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 22, 12:44 pm, HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:44:08 -0500, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Well, I expect the Obama admin will be significantly more "honest"
than the Bush admin. I do not expect perfection. I do not expect
Obama, Biden, Clinton, or Holder will tell bold-faced lies to the
American people about what their admin is doing and why.
Clinton already has.
How can a person or administration be "more honest"?
Either you are honest or you are not.
It's not quite that black or white.
Well, yes and no.
Let's take the Gitmo deal that President Obama has promised to close.
In a year.
Maybe more than that.
But he is closing it.
When is up in the air. *:)
So that's one example of the truth of closing down Gitmo not being
exactly true.
How about torture. *President Obama is closing down *"black" stations,
ending "harsh" interrogation techniques restricting interrogation to
the Army Field Manual which, as I remember, has something like 20
techniques for gathering information.
Unless, of course, it's absoutely necessary to use other, more
creative techniques.
That's another example of the truth of restricting harsh interrogation
not being exactly true.
So in a sense, Harry is right.
The Gitmo gulag will be shut down in a year or less. Period. Not more.
More likely, less.
Doubtful.
What's the holdup? Disposition of those being held. As soon as that is
worked out, the prison will close.
Doubtful.
The Army Field Manual has been revised since your days in the service.
It no longer is distributed on clay tablets. Further, it likely is to
be revised some one in that area, since some of the changes forced
during the Bush mis-administration were not exactly to the military's
liking.
Just means a few more illegal combatants will end up dying on the battle
field.
Keep in mind it is the professional military that objected to the
harsh tactics.
True, but the CIA didn't.
The Israelis have an interesting set of techniques with which they
torture their suspects: they set them up in dorms, let them do their
own cooking, allow contact family and conjugal visits, kill them with
kindness, and get a hell of a lot more information than we do.
Do you have proof of this?
It's been covered in the printed and television news several times. It's
not my problem if you are unaware of this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's unaware of it because you are Lobsta' boating the facts... snerk

Are you an ignorant ass naturally, do you work at it, or are you related
to Herring or Loogy?

The facts are simple: the Israelis treat their prisoners humanely. We do
not.

Hey, he asked simply for proof of your statement that:

The Israelis have an interesting set of techniques with which they
torture their suspects: they set them up in dorms, let them do their
own cooking, allow contact family and conjugal visits, kill them with
kindness, and get a hell of a lot more information than we do.

Are you going to prove it, or just throw around insults?

The failed Obama administration

wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 12:30 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 12:15 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:58 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:04 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:01 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see
the
state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats,
and
no
longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the
rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws
or
misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in
such
a
critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we
will
not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They
got
some.
Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick
around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose
experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you
elect
Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two
things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his
father
and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's
kids
as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find
unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these
characteristics.
Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be
wasting
our
time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know
somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby
ending
up
with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about
America
that
it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or
Sarah
Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to
answer
a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with
names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple
qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers...
Though
you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple
enough
for
you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't
give
a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be
more
simple?

===========

NPR and BBC, mentioned earlier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you only listen to left wing news, explains a lot really.
=============

I'd be happy to listen to a source which you consider balanced, or
even
right-wing, as long as the stories are longer than 15 seconds.
Please
provide one or two and I will listen.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot...

=============

I want in-depth stories, each of which last more than 15 seconds. If
this
seems strange to you, go look at the second hand on a clock for 15
seconds.

Now, tell me about one or two news sources which you like, whose news
stories last longer than 15 seconds.

Do you have any?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already answered, try to keep up... Gotta' go now, can't waste my time
on folks who are intentionally uninformed...

=====================

This was your response to my request for a source which you like:

"15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot..."

Your response does not name any sources. Since it is not possible to
understand the world based on 15 second news stories, the only possible
conclusion is that you have no sources which provide detailed
information.

If this is not true, name your source(s).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already noted several sources. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, BBC world news,
60 mins, Fox news Sunday, Hardball... Your silly qualifiers (15
seconds) are just excuses. You really need to expand your input if you
wish to keep up...

======================

You like 60 Minutes??? Aren't you people being instructed by the Garlique
salesman to hate CBS?

And, it appears we agree on BBC, although you pretended not to notice that
when you claimed not to like my sources.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You really need to start to read. I did not say anywhere I did not
like the BBC..
====================
No, but when I mentioned it, you dissed it.

====================
I simply noted that your stated sources limit you to
one point of view. As to CBS, I don't always agree, but I watch for
the same reasons I watch Chris Matthews, I am interested in all
viewpoints, not just the ones I agree with. That is the difference
between me and folks like you and Harry... I don't consider any part
of the country "fly over", I want to be informed, even if it changes
my opinion..

====================

Most of your sources involve sitting and watching. I need to receive
information at a higher rate of speed. I have an actual life from 6:00 AM
until midnight most days.

The failed Obama administration

On Jan 22, 1:04*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

You like 60 Minutes??? Aren't you people being instructed by the Garlique
salesman to hate CBS?

And, it appears we agree on BBC, although you pretended not to notice that
when you claimed not to like my sources.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You really need to start to read. I did not say anywhere I did not
like the BBC..
====================
No, but when I mentioned it, you dissed it.

Nope, never did that and you know it...

====================
*I simply noted that your stated sources limit you to
one point of view. As to CBS, I don't always agree, but I watch for
the same reasons I watch Chris Matthews, I am interested in all
viewpoints, not just the ones I agree with. That is the difference
between me and folks like you and Harry... I don't consider any part
of the country "fly over", I want to be informed, even if it changes
my opinion..

====================

Most of your sources involve sitting and watching. I need to receive
information at a higher rate of speed. I have an actual life from 6:00 AM
until midnight most days.

More excuses, you don't know what I do or where I work. Yes, I happen
to be able to watch news while I am working, so what? So, where do you
get your news at "a high rate of speed"? I mean, you already
dismissed 15 second news clips, or doesn't that count for you. Fact is
Joe, like most far left liberals, you limit your input, guess it's
easier that way, but it still leaves you terribly uninformed...

The failed Obama administration