On 10/1/11 11:09 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:55:57 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

On 10/1/2011 10:50 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John
wrote:

Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama
administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo.

No, it doesn't.

al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13
years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and
then released because they were guilty of nothing.

Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the
wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus
information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was
coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically.

Guilty based on what?

And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember?

More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong.

I really don't have a problem with killing these guys but I also
didn't have a huge problem with Gitmo.
I do wonder why killing everyone in that convoy is any different than
arresting and detaining everyone who was in a suspected terrorist
hideout.
These people keep ignoring the fact that we also killed a couple
drivers and whomever else was in the cars.

Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I guess... As
to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and decided
to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it...

I just want them to stop whining about the Gitmo people if that is how
we feel..

Even the ones scooped up for no reason other than being in the wrong
place at the wrong time and guilty of nothing?

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

X ` Man wrote:
On 10/1/11 11:09 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:55:57 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

On 10/1/2011 10:50 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John
wrote:

Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows
the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama
administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in
Guantanamo.

No, it doesn't.

al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13
years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and
then released because they were guilty of nothing.

Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the
wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus
information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was
coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically.

Guilty based on what?

And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember?

More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong.

I really don't have a problem with killing these guys but I also
didn't have a huge problem with Gitmo.
I do wonder why killing everyone in that convoy is any different than
arresting and detaining everyone who was in a suspected terrorist
hideout.
These people keep ignoring the fact that we also killed a couple
drivers and whomever else was in the cars.

Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I guess... As
to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and decided
to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it...

I just want them to stop whining about the Gitmo people if that is how
we feel..

Even the ones scooped up for no reason other than being in the wrong
place at the wrong time and guilty of nothing?


What is your president doing about it? He promised to shut it down in
his inaugural speech.

-HB

On 10/1/2011 9:31 PM, Honey Badger wrote:
X ` Man wrote:
On 10/1/11 11:09 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:55:57 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

On 10/1/2011 10:50 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John
wrote:

Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows
the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama
administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in
Guantanamo.

No, it doesn't.

al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13
years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and
then released because they were guilty of nothing.

Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the
wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus
information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was
coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically.

Guilty based on what?

And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember?

More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong.

I really don't have a problem with killing these guys but I also
didn't have a huge problem with Gitmo.
I do wonder why killing everyone in that convoy is any different than
arresting and detaining everyone who was in a suspected terrorist
hideout.
These people keep ignoring the fact that we also killed a couple
drivers and whomever else was in the cars.

Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I guess... As
to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and decided
to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it...

I just want them to stop whining about the Gitmo people if that is how
we feel..

Even the ones scooped up for no reason other than being in the wrong
place at the wrong time and guilty of nothing?


What is your president doing about it? He promised to shut it down in
his inaugural speech.

-HB

He promised a lot then. Problem is the only two promises he kept were
doubling the gas prices to feed GE, and triple health care costs over
the next five years...

On 10/1/11 4:07 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 11:25:34 -0400, X `
wrote:

Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I guess... As
to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and decided
to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it...

I just want them to stop whining about the Gitmo people if that is how
we feel..

Even the ones scooped up for no reason other than being in the wrong
place at the wrong time and guilty of nothing?

You mean like the people who get killed by drones because they are at
the wrong place at the wrong time or just as collateral damage to the
guy they are trying to kill?

To expand the concept, think of drones as execution and gitmo as life
in prison. I thought you were against the death penalty.

As long as the view is consistent, I don't have a huge problem with it
either way but I do think we are slipping back into that "untouchable
death from the skies" mentality that got us in trouble in the 90s.


You seem to think I favor the actions you describe. I'm not one of the
right-wing ciphers in here.

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

X ` Man wrote:
On 10/1/11 4:07 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 11:25:34 -0400, X `
wrote:

Yeah, that's what happens when you declare war on the US I
guess... As
to the drivers, etc.. They knew damn well they were at war, and
decided
to stay in the fight, they lost, get over it...

I just want them to stop whining about the Gitmo people if that is how
we feel..

Even the ones scooped up for no reason other than being in the wrong
place at the wrong time and guilty of nothing?

You mean like the people who get killed by drones because they are at
the wrong place at the wrong time or just as collateral damage to the
guy they are trying to kill?

To expand the concept, think of drones as execution and gitmo as life
in prison. I thought you were against the death penalty.

As long as the view is consistent, I don't have a huge problem with it
either way but I do think we are slipping back into that "untouchable
death from the skies" mentality that got us in trouble in the 90s.


You seem to think I favor the actions you describe. I'm not one of the
right-wing ciphers in here.


I don't give a **** what you think. Do you think anyone else does, Harry?

-HB

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John H
wrote:

Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama
administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo.

No, it doesn't.

al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13
years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and
then released because they were guilty of nothing.

Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the
wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus
information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was
coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically.

Guilty based on what?

Uh, his online lectures that have been traced to numerous plots
against western targets?


And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember?

More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong.

Yes, he did, but I'm sure he found a lot bigger mess left to him by
Bush than he could unravel. He shouldn't have made this a "promise"
until he evaluated the situation. That's the difference between pre
election rhetoric and being briefed on the "secrets" of the matter.

Bush again?

Ah, yes. It's Bush's fault.

Do you not realize how stupid you sound?

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:01:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:44:12 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John H
wrote:

Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama
administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo.

No, it doesn't.

al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13
years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and
then released because they were guilty of nothing.

Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the
wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus
information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was
coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically.

Guilty based on what?

Uh, his online lectures that have been traced to numerous plots
against western targets?


And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember?

More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong.

Yes, he did, but I'm sure he found a lot bigger mess left to him by
Bush than he could unravel. He shouldn't have made this a "promise"
until he evaluated the situation. That's the difference between pre
election rhetoric and being briefed on the "secrets" of the matter.

Bush again?

Ah, yes. It's Bush's fault.

Do you not realize how stupid you sound?

Yes, I do, to those that absolutely believe that Bush could do no
wrong. Do you know how stupid YOU sound to the rest of the civilized
world?
Bush isn't the topic.

On 10/3/11 8:11 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:01:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:44:12 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:25 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:26:18 -0400, John
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:57 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:41:01 -0400, John
wrote:

Anwar al-Awlaki's killing was absolutely justified, but it shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Obama
administration and liberals who cried about the terrorists in Guantanamo.

No, it doesn't.

al Awlaki was guilty. Guantanamo held innocent people as young as 13
years old, which were detained for a ridiculous amount of time and
then released because they were guilty of nothing.

Even Bush couldn't bring to trial a bunch of people that were in the
wrong place at the wrong time. From the guilty, tons of bogus
information was obtained. Few of them really guilty got what was
coming to them. Guantanamo was a huge mess, legally and politically.

Guilty based on what?

Uh, his online lectures that have been traced to numerous plots
against western targets?


And, your boy promised to fix Guantanamo. Remember?

More bull**** from Obama, who can do no wrong.

Yes, he did, but I'm sure he found a lot bigger mess left to him by
Bush than he could unravel. He shouldn't have made this a "promise"
until he evaluated the situation. That's the difference between pre
election rhetoric and being briefed on the "secrets" of the matter.

Bush again?

Ah, yes. It's Bush's fault.

Do you not realize how stupid you sound?

Yes, I do, to those that absolutely believe that Bush could do no
wrong. Do you know how stupid YOU sound to the rest of the civilized
world?
Bush isn't the topic.


In discussing how ****ed up this country now is, Bush is always on
topic. Bush ****ed up this country so badly in so many areas we likely
will never recover from the ****-ups of his presidency.


--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...



In discussing how ****ed up this country now is, Bush is always on
topic. Bush ****ed up this country so badly in so many areas we likely
will never recover from the ****-ups of his presidency.

------------------------------------------------------------

I have no idea if you are the "real" Harry or not and I am not about to
waste my time checking headers, etc.
Most of these discussions aren't worth the effort of even reading.

However, I think you should consider some recent comments by Bill Clinton.
He's no dummy.
In his view, the USA has been on a cycle of change for about the last 30
years in terms of
the economy, the role of government, the culture of business and
relationships with employees, etc.
Efforts by government to level the playing field have not always produced
the results they intended.
It's not necessarily a takeover of any particular political view ... it's a
constant see-sawing of how much
involvement in private lives should the government have or control. Bush
II's administration made
errors just like many of those before him and will make in the future.
Economically, he happened to be
at the helm when the **** hit the fan, so to speak. It would have happened
regardless of who was POTUS.

Once in a while truth has to be interjected in all the political posturing
that takes place. Clinton did.

Eisboch

X ` Man wrote:


In discussing how ****ed up this country now is, Bush is always on
topic. Bush ****ed up this country so badly in so many areas we likely
will never recover from the ****-ups of his presidency.


Still running with that, Harry? Many Democrats in office don't believe
that silly bull****!

-HB