The "debate" over all the bad and scary things that will happen if Obama closes Guantanamo and we then incarcerate those detainees in American prisons is so painfully stupid even by the standards of our political discourse that it's hard to put into words, and it also perfectly illustrates the steps that typically lead to America's National Security policies:

(1) Right-wing super-tough-guy warriors project some frightened, adolescent, neurotic fantasy onto the world -- either because they are really petrified by it or because they want others to be ("Putting Muslim Terrorists in our prisons will make us Unsafe! -- Keep them away from me, please!!!");

(2) Rather than scoff at the inane fear-mongering or point out simple facts to reveal its idiocy, Democratic "leaders" such as Harry Reid echo the right-wing fears in order to prove how Serious and Tough they are -- in our political debates, the more frightened one is, the more Serious and Tough one is -- and/or because they are genuinely frightened of being called mean names by Sean Hannity ("Harry Reid isn't as scared of this as I am, which shows that he's weak");

(3) "Journalists" who are capable of nothing other than mindlessly reciting what they hear then write articles depicting the Right's frightened neurosis as a Serious argument, and then overnight, a consensus emerges: Democrats are in big trouble politically unless they show that they, too, are as deeply frightened as the Right is.

Read the rest Here

Its no surprise, I cannot think of one rightwing leader who is not a chickenhawk.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Yeah, well ... all too many Democrats engage in step number 2 - so they don't get off scott free as far as I'm concerned.

I quit the democrats a long time ago, they were just the second rate sons of giants. The present day politicians using the words of their fathers with out knowing what the meant or what they were supposed to do.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

"Its no surprise, I cannot think of one rightwing leader who is not a chickenhawk."


Then for God's sake please inform us of all of your leftist heroes....I'm sure you have a list of them a mile long! Give us a few!----->

The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism.....Aneurin Bevan

Well, this is a promisinging start to a thread. Let's look at point (1). 

(1) Right-wing super-tough-guy warriors project some frightened, adolescent, neurotic fantasy onto the world -- either because they are really petrified by it or because they want others to be ("Putting Muslim Terrorists in our prisons will make us Unsafe! -- Keep them away from me, please!!!");

I could discuss this with more enthusiasm if I knew which individuals had every one of these following characteristics:

1. right wing
2. suffer a personality defect in which their ego construct is a "super-tough-guy"
3. are warriors
4. are frightened by some existential threat or neurosis
5. have not matured out of adolescence yet they strut the international stage and wield power
6. harbor neurotic fantasies (see #4)

Could you give us the names of these individuals and sources for the psychiatric evaluations that led you to this conclusion?

Can't wait to tackle your next two points.  

 

 

 

*****
You can borrow from the Devil
You can borrow from a friend
But the Devil will give you twenty
When your friend only got ten
- Ramblin Jack Elliot

  1.  Well geez, didn't he just list the Republicans, the Democrats, and the media?  I get it,  "Look dear, everybody in the band is out of step but our little Johnny!".

  2.   Use tobacco pogroms as your model here.  The "detainies"(POWs), are brought to US soil, and magically become "the accused", or at least "detainies" with US legal rights.  Next stop, civilian trails, because of these legal rights.  Next stop *aquittal*?  Why not?  Is it not going to be a *fair* trial?  Hot-shot defense lawyer, inept, low-grade, prosecutor, and either a bored, or "compassionate" jury?  Next stop, well funded lives of Corvettes and titty-bars?  The only thing the Right *fears* is the boundless arrogance of the Left.  Nothing is beyond or beneath them when they are on a roll.

gus.

 

 

 

 

 Nothing is beyond or beneath them when they are on a roll.

You mean they act like Republicans?  Perish the thought, Republicans wrote the book when it comes to unadulterated gall when they are in power.  Nixon, Reagan, Bush... those folks really knew how to fuck the country.

Nixon, Reagan, Bush... those folks really knew how to fuck the country.

   Oh now, I have this hunch that the next 3+ years are going to be very sobering for you, and very entertaining for me.  Time will certainly tell...

gus.

 

You know it is the obvious fact of history. Republicans defend the country and Democrats believe they can talk their way out of war or anything else.

So we are listening to Obama and not paying attention to what he is doing. Democrats are blinded by the glitter of talk. Obama is a Rockj Star in the political areana. Wait for the cheering to stop.

in our political debates, the more frightened one is, the more Serious and Tough one is





(3) "Journalists" who are capable of nothing other than mindlessly reciting what they hear then write articles depicting ........{the far left's}............. frightened neurosis as a Serious argument, and then overnight, a consensus emerges:........ {deniers}........ are in big trouble politically unless they show that they, too, are as deeply frightened as the .....{left} .........is.



fits perfectly....hahahahahahahahaha

You know it is the obvious fact of history. Republicans defend the country and Democrats believe they can talk their way out of war or anything else.



*************************

not true

FDR was a democrat

as was Truman

they Led us to victory in WW2

credit where it is due...................


but would today's liberals detain Japanese in America ,prosecute and execute traitors to our country publicly or drop two nukes to end the war and save millions by sacrificing innocent Japanese people?
or fire-bomb a city to gain foothold to crush the rolling panzers and the arrogance of a seemingly unstoppable German force?



not just i doubt it ....but HELL NO....they're squeamish about dunking suicide bombing recruiters in water

diplomacy is really the route to go with the people who chopped off Daniel Pearl's head on video....right?...yeah....they respond well to.....talk......that's it...we'll talk mean to them (but not too mean, we don't want to hurt their feelings)

Could you give us the names of these individuals and sources for the psychiatric evaluations that led you to this conclusion?

I should think it's obvious from the current example: the whole Republican leadership (and all their rank and file) are running around yammering about how putting detainees in solitary in a Super Max facility is tantamount to setting them free on the streets of small-town America.

You're right, Gillis. In those days, I was a Democrat, but the Democrats left me. I didn't leave them.

You know it is the obvious fact of history. Republicans defend the country and Democrats believe they can talk their way out of war or anything else.

One minute poetse states it is the OBVIOUS FACT of HISTORY. The next....

You're right, Gillis. In those days, I was a Democrat, but the Democrats left me. I didn't leave them.

Typical poetse.

I should think it's obvious from the current example: the whole Republican leadership (and all their rank and file) are running around yammering about how putting detainees in solitary in a Super Max facility is tantamount to setting them free on the streets of small-town America.

   I laid out a *very* plausible chain of events that could result in them doing exactly that.  Have Liberals/Democrats just embraced unintended consequences as a way of life, or what?

gus.

 

 

and here I thought the fear with terrorism suspects on U.S. soil would make it easier for sleeper cells to create prison breaks.

You know it is the obvious fact of history. Republicans defend the country and Democrats believe they can talk their way out of war or anything else.

One minute poetse states it is the OBVIOUS FACT of HISTORY. The next....

In the Revolutionary war there were about pone-third of the people what wanted to fight, one-th=ird who didn't and one-third that didn't care one way or the other. If you check your history, you will discover how parties change. For example, the Republican Party under Lincon was credited with freeing the slave. The party of the modern Democrats is the chapmpionj of the civil rights. Parties change.


You're right, Gillis. In those days, I was a Democrat, but the Democrats left me. I didn't leave them.



Typical poetse.


And as you should notice, Kennedy lowered taxes to improve the economy. Well, that sounds like Reagan. So when I refer to Democrats, I am referring to the party that embraces the philosophy of Obama. And you believe that McCain shows us the party of the Republicans. Therefore, Democrats talk and Republicans defend the country. Now that makies sense to me. But you are tied into Democrats being the sme party since its inception. Not true. Democrats were for States Rights during the 1850s. Not now. they are for government control.

Typical CJ never understanding the truth.

And as you should notice, Kennedy lowered taxes to improve the economy.

Any idea what the top marginal rate was after the Kennedy tax cut, Poetse? Interesting how we had a strong economy with a top rate more than double what it is today, no?

Any idea what the top marginal rate was after the Kennedy tax cut, Poetse? Interesting how we had a strong economy with a top rate more than double what it is today, no?

Well, of course it is interesting any you might have a point if tax rates were the only variable that affects the economy. But there are many other factors that should be considered. Tax rates may be use to try to stimulate the economy or keep it from overheating. Likewise interest rates are used for the same purpose. So what is your point?

Edited to add: Something other that taxes and interest caused the economy to heat up or slow down or they would not be raising or lower9ng taxes to affect the economy. However, it is certain that the more money the government takes from the private sector, the less the private sector has to use. And those who relly want to make profits leave the country or find loopholes.

Bill Clinton raised the taxes on the welthy wehen he went into office. In his second term he admitted he had raised them too much. That because the economy was stalling. But the dot.com had more to do wi8th the economy than taxes or interest rates.

I should think it's obvious from the current example: the whole Republican leadership (and all their rank and file) are running around yammering about how putting detainees in solitary in a Super Max facility is tantamount to setting them free on the streets of small-town America.

bringing them to American soil gets them lawyers who can argue that evidence collected against them be thrown out....no miranda....etc.

Fact: Not one prisoner has ever successfully escaped from one of America's Super Max facilities.

Cheney stated that 14% of the 525 released detainees have returned to the battlefield.

Did he mention that each and every one of those who returned to the battlefield was released by Bush/Cheney?

bringing them to American soil gets them lawyers who can argue that evidence collected against them be thrown out....no miranda....etc.

Really? The USA currently houses 33 international terrorists, many with ties to al-Qaeda. All in a single federal prison in Florence, Colo.,  and you didn't even know about them. Do you feel like a fool for not knowing about them?

Cheney, in his own speech, denounced some of Obama's actions since taking office as "unwise in the extreme" and "recklessness cloaked in righteousness," repeating his contention from a series of headline-grabbing appearances recently that the new president is endangering the country by turning aside Bush-era policies.

Bush/Cheney released 525 detainees it looks like Obama is simply continuing with the Bush/Cheney program.

BTW America still holds 240 prisoners in Cuba.

*************************
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgarV13g6QM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoqmH49VBC0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeMuDN9Ewyc

Not so fast Poestse, here's a recap, from a leftist of our more recent Democratic Presidents and their "warmongering"

http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn05222009.html

Cheney stated that 14% of the 525 released detainees have returned to the battlefield.

I want to see a clear definition of what they men by "return to the battlefield" because the last time around that they were issuing this kind of claim, they were using things like writing an editorial published in the New York Times, and participating in making a documentary film.

And even if this number is correct, how does one defend incarcerating the other 86% forever? There's always some risk in letting people walk free - should we imprison everyone? Should the idea of imprisoning people for what we think they might do not be anathema?

And even if this number is correct, how does one defend incarcerating the other 86% forever? There's always some risk in letting people walk free - should we imprison everyone? Should the idea of imprisoning people for what we think they might do not be anathema?

   Good grief, it's the same bizzare construct that Ron lives in.  Do you honestly think that anyone interred at Gitmo was just leaning against a lamp post somewhere smoking a cigarette, and ogling the babes?  It's just too wierd.  Once you have convinced yourself that Bush, and Cheney, and Scooter Libby, and some guard at Gitmo, and some officer in charge somewhere, ad nauseum, have the same mental makeup as Vlad the Impaler, then you are pretty much free to believe anything that floats your boat, right?  No matter how incredible?  Gheezuz, is their any risk in letting *you* walk free?

gus.

 

 

 

 

Do you honestly think that anyone interred at Gitmo was just leaning against a lamp post somewhere smoking a cigarette, and ogling the babes? It's just too wierd.

Well the majority even of those remaining there were not captured on any battlefield, and I don't know if it's a majority but quite a few were turned over by Pakistanis or Afghans who were paid a bounty.

In addition to the simple profit motive of collecting a bounty, there have absolutely been cases where the accusations against a detainee turned out to be a matter of some neighbor with a grudge or who wanted to steal the individual's property once they were locked up, or of tribal rivalries leading to false accusations.

If you bothered to pull your head out of your ass, you'd know about this stuff, Gus.

In addition to the simple profit motive of collecting a bounty, there have absolutely been cases where the accusations against a detainee turned out to be a matter of some neighbor with a grudge or who wanted to steal the individual's property once they were locked up, or of tribal rivalries leading to false accusations.

If you bothered to pull your head out of your ass, you'd know about this stuff, Gus.

   I know all about this stuff, and the bottom-line presumption that you wankers must make about it goes right back to Vlad the Impaler.  That for some reason, Bush either found no reason to extract this information from wherever you got it, or that he simply enjoyed imprisoning totally innocent people indefinately.  Given the track-record of your side? pffttt....

gus.

 

Year after year wankers like you, Gus, bought the line of happy horseshit that everybody imprisoned at Gitmo was "the worst of the worst." And you're still buying it, despite the indisputable fact that it was a load of lies.

The Bush admin had a vested interest in appearing to be doing something effective to "keep us safe." And yes, they didn't give a shit how many innocent people they fucked in the process.

I see. Gitmo was a showplace. Kind of like a Prison Potemkin Village and many of the people it held were innocents.

Must be nice to live in your world, Jan. 

*****
You can borrow from the Devil
You can borrow from a friend
But the Devil will give you twenty
When your friend only got ten
- Ramblin Jack Elliot

---You're right, Gillis. In those days, I was a Democrat, but the Democrats left me. I didn't leave ----

Thats right Hubert Humphrey demanded the party live up to its ideals, and now all the southern white trash racist, sexist, fake christian bigots are what is left of the Republican party.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Thats right Hubert Humphrey demanded the party live up to its ideals, and now all the southern white trash racist, sexist, fake christian bigots are what is left of the Republican party.

J2, the War of Secession was fought over States Rights and the rights of the individual over the State. The North won the war and Lincoln began taking power from the states and giving it to the federal government. FDR was still a Democrat supported by the solid South. But notice how the Democrat Party changed after that. The Democrats became the party of the big federal government.

It had nothing to do with white trash, racists, sexist, fake christianbigots. It became the party that wanted to enslave the people and take away individual freedom.

The freedom to harm others and keep your foot on their throat was never one of the rights the founding fathers enshrined in the constitution potese.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Year after year wankers like you, Gus, bought the line of happy horseshit that everybody imprisoned at Gitmo was "the worst of the worst." And you're still buying it, despite the indisputable fact that it was a load of lies.

   Flatly not true.  I've never had any "worst of the worst" opinion at all!  I've always thought that they were just an assortment of POWs, with an assortment of values as sources of information, or dangers as enemy combatants.  If you will remember, I always held the opinion that all of this nonsense could have been avoided by just shooting them all where they were captured.  That wasn't very conducive to intel gathering either.

The Bush admin had a vested interest in appearing to be doing something effective to "keep us safe." And yes, they didn't give a shit how many innocent people they fucked in the process.

   LOL!  No, they had a vested interest in doing something effective to keep us safe, not appearing to.  That's kinda part of the job, don't you know?(what a fascinating turn of phrase on your part)  And the fact that they succeeded virtually 100% is what *really* sticks in your craw for some wierd reason.  BDS is some strange shit...

gus.

 

Flatly not true. I've never had any "worst of the worst" opinion at all!

Ah, so you agree that Cheney was lying about them all those times he said that they were "the worst of the worst." Right?


I've always thought that they were just an assortment of POWs, with an assortment of values as sources of information, or dangers as enemy combatants. If you will remember, I always held the opinion that all of this nonsense could have been avoided by just shooting them all where they were captured. That wasn't very conducive to intel gathering either.

So you think an appropriate thing to do whan a foreign power hands us a shackled prisoner is to summarily execute him? Because you know (and admitted above that you know) that that's how we got most of them. As prisoners handed to us by the Pakistanis or Afghans. Prisoners for whom we paid a bounty.

And since over 500 of them have since been released on the basis that there's no evidence they ever were "enemy combatants" that means you would have happily executed hundreds of innocent men.

You'd make a fine SS officer, Gus.



LOL! No, they had a vested interest in doing something effective to keep us safe, not appearing to. That's kinda part of the job, don't you know?(what a fascinating turn of phrase on your part) And the fact that they succeeded virtually 100% is what really sticks in your craw for some wierd reason. BDS is some strange shit...

Succeeded almost 100%? Bullshit. They got us into a totally unnecessary clusterfuck in Iraq, they screwed up Afghanistan to the point that we're at some serious risk of losing there, the worldwide rate of terrorist attacks skyrocketed during Bush's tenure. But I suppose you're using the bullshit measure of "no major terroris attack on US soil since 9/11" - by which measure Clinton was an equally tremendous success without any of the torture, warrantless wiretapping, etc.

Flatly not true. I've never had any "worst of the worst" opinion at all!

Ah, so you agree that Cheney was lying about them all those times he said that they were "the worst of the worst." Right?

    I would suspect that Cheney might be better informed than me.  I'm just not infected with the virus that drives me to seek in all things some reason to call Cheney a liar. 


I've always thought that they were just an assortment of POWs, with an assortment of values as sources of information, or dangers as enemy combatants. If you will remember, I always held the opinion that all of this nonsense could have been avoided by just shooting them all where they were captured. That wasn't very conducive to intel gathering either.

So you think an appropriate thing to do whan a foreign power hands us a shackled prisoner is to summarily execute him? Because you know (and admitted above that you know) that that's how we got most of them. As prisoners handed to us by the Pakistanis or Afghans. Prisoners for whom we paid a bounty.

And since over 500 of them have since been released on the basis that there's no evidence they ever were "enemy combatants" that means you would have happily executed hundreds of innocent men.

You'd make a fine SS officer, Gus.

   If you will recall just a little harder, those discussions were when we were capturing combat hostiles during the early days of both wars.  Still, I stand by my opinion, if for no other reason than the fact that the Left would have had an entire universe of Righteous Indignation vaporize, and would have been reduced to wandering the streets kicking at rightwing dogs.  



LOL! No, they had a vested interest in doing something effective to keep us safe, not appearing to. That's kinda part of the job, don't you know?(what a fascinating turn of phrase on your part) And the fact that they succeeded virtually 100% is what really sticks in your craw for some wierd reason. BDS is some strange shit...

Succeeded almost 100%? Bullshit. They got us into a totally unnecessary clusterfuck in Iraq, they screwed up Afghanistan to the point that we're at some serious risk of losing there, the worldwide rate of terrorist attacks skyrocketed during Bush's tenure. But I suppose you're using the bullshit measure of "no major terroris attack on US soil since 9/11" - by which measure Clinton was an equally tremendous success without any of the torture, warrantless wiretapping, etc.

   Well duh!?  Which part of "keeping us safe" is so subject to nuance? *chortle*  Good grief, Jan, Grover Cleveland had an excellent record against terrorist attacks on US soil too!  I understand why the obvious success of the Bush administration really gripes your butt, at least on some 3rd-grader level I do.  For starters, the Left, and their President, are perched way out on a limb for the next 3+ years.  Disable the Bush efforts at your own risk, and don't disable the Bush efforts, and face the fury of people like you.  Poor Obama...

gus.