• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Again, nowhere in that article does it imply that McGovern is against the surge in Afghanistan.

EDIT-Are you goddamn stupid? Here's what you said after you mentioned that you weren't talking about politicians:



Jesus Christ.

Again, with the name calling. As I have already stated, I wrote that the article includes democrats who are against build up AND THEIR REASONING'S! That article includes McGovern's REASONS for being against the build up. I.E. WITHOUT A WITHDRAWAL PLAN. If you want to keep on throwing out bombs have fun, its not worth discussing this with you. BTW, I am sure you will announce to GAF how you "won" and "shut me up" so have fun.
 
I said that many democrats are upset with Obama for increasing troops in Afghanistan
.

Okay, many Democrats are upset with Obama's surge in Afghanisan. First, you never provided a source to back up that claim. Second,

However here is an article that lists a few and their reasoning.

Here, you go ahead provide a link since I thought you were talking about Democratic politicians, and mentioned that there a few who are against Obama's surge in Afghanistan and give their reasons.

What's there to not understand? They don't have a problem with Obama's surge nor did they imply, yet you go on to say they are against the surge, yet their reason is to have to an exit strategy.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
.

Okay, many Democrats are upset with Obama's surge in Afghanisan. First, you never provided a source to back up that claim. Second,



Here, you go ahead provide a link since I thought you were talking about Democratic politicians, and mentioned that there a few who are against Obama's surge in Afghanistan and give their reasons.

What's there to not understand? They don't have a problem with Obama's surge nor did they imply, yet you go on to say they are against the surge, yet their reason is to have to an exit strategy.

You "thought I was talking about Democratic politicians", that was your bad, not mine. I never said politicians nor did I feel I needed to since I never met someone who assumed when someone said "democrats" or "republicans" they only are referring to the politicians themselves rather than the people. Also, they do have a problem with the surge and won't support it UNTIL THERE IS A EXIT STRATEGY as I said, THEIR REASONS.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Guess you missed this part:

And I guess you missed where I even said
"As I have already stated, I wrote that the article includes democrats who are against build up AND THEIR REASONING'S! That article includes McGovern's REASONS for being against the build up. I.E. WITHOUT A WITHDRAWAL PLAN."
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Nowhere in that article does it say McGovern is against the surge. All he says is that he intrduced a resolution to have an exit strategy.

He is against issuing more money for the war in Afghanistan when there is no exit strategy and sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

"Sometimes great presidents make mistakes," declared Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern [1] as he announced his intention to vote against $97 billion in "emergency" supplemental funding for the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq and President Obama's dangerously misguided plan to surge 21,000 more U.S. troops and trainers into Afghanistan

The mission has greatly expanded and the policy is vague," the Massachusetts congressman explained Thursday. "The more stuff I'm exposed to the more uneasy I get about what we're doing here. I get this sinking feeling that we're getting sucked into something that we'll never be able to get out of.
. "

If that doesn't mean he isn't against it, I don't know what is. He is against it because there is no exit strategy, yet, he is still against it.
 

besada

Banned
LovingSteam said:
It's interesting to me because I have stated that I differ with the republicans on many issues, yet you and others have no problem categorizing me as right wing. But hey, if demonizing someone makes you feel that your argument is superior have at it.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but you voted for the Republican in the last three elections, which makes you a registered Republican, no?

I'm curious why you keep trying to run away from that.

And I don't think it's particularly bad for the 3rd, 2nd, or 1st politician in the country to question the CIA. The CIA has a long history of bullshitting politicians and flat out lying domestically. People who don't question the motives and methods of the CIA make me a little nervous.
 
He says "misguided plan" and "policy is vague". That doesn't necessarily mean he's against the troop surge. He could be for the surge, yet executed in a different way. He doesn't want to keep sending money to Afghanistan if there's no clear exit strategy. I want an exit strategy for Afghanistan. Does that make me against the troop surge? Nope. Again, McGovern has a problem with sending billions of dollars to the country if there's no clear exit:

But McGovern is not willing to write Obama a blank check for endless warmaking.
 

APF

Member
bishoptl said:
I'm not too concerned on what you find hypocritical. I do appreciate your concern, however.
If you're not interested in my views, why bother arguing with me across multiple posts? Why edit your frivolous posts in order to respond to my serious ones? You're trying too hard, for someone who is so unconcerned. You do care, either because you feel arguing with me makes you a better man, or because a part of you genuinely respects my opinion.
 
besada said:
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but you voted for the Republican in the last three elections, which makes you a registered Republican, no?

I'm curious why you keep trying to run away from that.

And I don't think it's particularly bad for the 3rd, 2nd, or 1st politician in the country to question the CIA. The CIA has a long history of bullshitting politicians and flat out lying domestically. People who don't question the motives and methods of the CIA make me a little nervous.

I voted repub the last 2 but that doesnt mean i agree with repubs on all issues.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
He says "misguided plan" and "policy is vague". That doesn't necessarily mean he's against the troop surge. He could be for the surge, yet executed in a different way. He doesn't want to keep sending money to Afghanistan if there's no clear exit strategy. I want an exit strategy for Afghanistan. Does that make me against the troop surge? Nope. Again, McGovern has a problem with sending billions of dollars to the country if there's no clear exit:

And again, I didn't say they are against stop terror in Afghanistan, I said they are against the surge BECAUSE. He is against the surge not just for the sake of it or because he thinks its wrong in theory but because as of now there is no exit strategy and he doesn't want to send more troops there without there being an exit strategy. Just because the reason he offers for why he is against against the surge is other than the surge itself doesn't mean he still isn't against it.

I may not like cheeseburgers because it has cheese on it doesn't mean I still don't like cheeseburgers.
 

besada

Banned
LovingSteam said:
I voted repub the last 2 but that doesnt mean i agree with repubs on all issues.

But it does mean you're a Republican. I'm a Democrat who doesn't agree with the Democratic party frequently, but I don't shrink away when someone suggests I'm a Democrat.

I find it fascinating that you seem incapable of admitting you're a Republican, and seem to get offended when someone calls you a Republican.
 
If I can't get it through LovingSteam's head, then I don't know what will. I have a headache trying to convince him that he's wrong.

But it does mean you're a Republican. I'm a Democrat who doesn't agree with the Democratic party frequently, but I don't shrink away when someone suggests I'm a Democrat.

I was basically going to say the exact same thing. I'm democrat, yet I don't agree with all of Obama's policies. =\
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
Yeah.

so anyway..


Montana town says they want the Gitmo detainees:


http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/montana.gitmo.west/index.html


HARDIN, Montana (CNN) -- The tiny town of Hardin, Montana, is offering an answer to a very thorny question: Where should the nation put terror detainees if the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is shut down by the end of the year as President Obama has pledged?

Hardin, population 3,400, sits in the southeast corner of Montana, in the state's poorest county. Its small downtown is almost deserted at midday. The Dollar Store is going out of business. The Hardin Mini Mall is already shut. The town needs jobs -- and fast.

Hardin borrowed $27 million through bonds to build the Two Rivers Regional Correctional Facility in hopes of creating new employment opportunities. The jail was ready for prisoners two years ago, but has yet to house a single prisoner.

People here say politics in the capital of Helena has kept it empty. But the city council last month voted 5-0 to back a proposal to bring Gitmo detainees -- some of the most hardened terrorists in the world -- to the facility. Video Watch town's fight to be Gitmo West »

"It would bring jobs. Believe it or not, it would even bring hope and opportunity," Greg Smith, Hardin's economic development director, told CNN.

But a decision on whether it becomes a reality is a long way off. The state's congressional leaders have lined up against the plan. "Housing potential terrorists in Montana is not good for our state," Max Baucus, the state's senior Democratic senator, wrote to Smith. "These people stop at nothing. Their primary goal in life, and death, is to destroy America."

Adds Sen. Jon Tester, "I just don't think it's appropriate, that's all. I don't think they know what they're asking for."

On North Central Avenue in downtown Hardin, opinion is mixed. See where Hardin is located »

Darlene McMillen says if the detainees move in, she is moving out. A part-time waitress at a Hardin restaurant, McMillen says her opinion is based on her son's experiences serving in the military in Afghanistan. "He said the people have no respect for any human life, even their own."

Manicurist Donovan Lindsay says bringing the detainees to Hardin would bring more law enforcement, and that would make the town safer. She also believes it would generate jobs . "We are the poorest county in the state of Montana and we need all the help we can get," she says.

The 464-bed facility is state of the the art. Yet scores of surveillance cameras aren't powered up. A magnetometer near the front door isn't even plugged in. It's simply waiting for its intended use.

Bright orange prison jump suits emblazoned with the words "Two Rivers" are stacked in a storage room along with shoes, towels, blankets, even razors and underwear, for prisoners. Another room contains riot helmets, gas masks, batons, shields, and guns for guards. Greg Smith says, "We got rooms full of this stuff. It just sits there ready to go."

The prison has single, double, and dorm-style cells, but Smith says it could be modified to keep detainees separated from one another. He says because only terror detainees would be housed here, it would eliminate any risk that they would radicalize others. He also says the facility could accommodate special dietary and religious needs.

Inside the facility, he motions around a large dormitory-style room filled with empty bunk beds. "It's big enough you probably could build a mosque in one of these," Smith says.

Although the facility was intended to be used as a medium-security prison, Smith says it meets maximum-security criteria. Smith, a military veteran, doesn't have corrections experience, but challenges anyone who doubts the security at Two Rivers.

He says he'd be glad to lock the doubters up to test it. "We will give them three days and I'll buy the coffee in the coffee shop if they can get out. I'd be happy."

Glyn Perkins agrees on that score. He worked for eight years in maximum security prisons in Texas and says Two Rivers is the most secure facility he has ever been in.

Perkins and his wife, Rae, moved to Hardin to take jobs at Two Rivers, but they got laid off earlier this year because there still were no prisoners. Although holding Gitmo detainees here might mean they would get their jobs back, they don't want to see it happen.

Despite their confidence in the security of the prison, they worry about the community and their three children. "I don't agree with it because it is five blocks from city hall," says Glyn Perkins.

His wife chimes in, "Yeah, and 11 blocks from the school, and to me that is just a little scary."

"Bottom line," she said, "I really don't want Gitmo in my backyard."

If the federal government were to move detainees here, it would decide who would run the prison and how it would be staffed. The Perkinses are skeptical that the federal government would offer many jobs to the people of Hardin. Rae Perkins doesn't think very many of the city's unemployed would be qualified. "I haven't met anyone in Hardin that speaks Arabic," she said.

But Greg Smith thinks the prison would generate business for gas stations, restaurants, and other local enterprises, giving the entire region an economic boost. And, he says, it would benefit the country.

If Obama closes Guantanamo in January as pledged, Smith maintains Hardin would be a safe place to keep the detainees that nobody else wants.

Obama last week defended his plan to shutter the military detention center at Guantanamo, saying it has become a "rallying cry for our enemies." The Senate and House have both passed measures that would prevent the detainees from being transferred to the United States.

Smith voices disdain for members of Congress who supported closing Guantanamo but now oppose putting its prisoners in the U.S.
advertisement

"All of the senators are running for the hills, and all of the representatives. So we really are nowhere except we've got a town that says, 'We have the place and we have the will.' "

He is waiting for Washington to call.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
LovingSteam said:
What right wing talking points have I made? Also, if there are right wing talking points are they simply ignored/false because they are made by conservatives? Also, I mention Nanci Pelosi because 1) She is the 3rd most powerful person, 2) If you have other nations hearing the 3rd most powerful person calling into question the validity of the CIA and their intelligence then that will cause problems for us later on. It's interesting to me because I have stated that I differ with the republicans on many issues, yet you and others have no problem categorizing me as right wing. But hey, if demonizing someone makes you feel that your argument is superior have at it.
You're still on the CIA trip? Pelosi was not the only one questioning the CIA's timeline, and they've already been lambasted for falsifying alleged briefings with other members of Congress at that time. Boehner also doesn't have a problem calling the CIA fibbers. But hey, tis your agenda.
 
besada said:
But it does mean you're a Republican. I'm a Democrat who doesn't agree with the Democratic party frequently, but I don't shrink away when someone suggests I'm a Democrat.

I find it fascinating that you seem incapable of admitting you're a Republican, and seem to get offended when someone calls you a Republican.

Because I don't consider myself a republican. I consider myself more independent or libertarian.
 
scorcho said:
You're still on the CIA trip? Pelosi was not the only one questioning the CIA's timeline, and they've already been lambasted for falsifying alleged briefings with other members of Congress at that time. Boehner also doesn't have a problem calling the CIA fibbers. But hey, tis your agenda.

And where have you been when you didn't read that I had a problem with Boehner saying the same thing? I was asked a question about the CIA and responded in like manner.
 

besada

Banned
quadriplegicjon said:
Montana town says they want the Gitmo detainees:

I think they're the second or third place to volunteer their jail services. The entire notion that there's a danger keeping these guys in places like SuperMAX prisons is laughable.
 

Hop

That girl in the bunny hat
LovingSteam said:
Because I don't consider myself a republican. I consider myself more independent or libertarian.

I'd bet this is why national party ID has tended away from Republican and toward Independent. People's opinions aren't changing, they just don't want the label.
 

besada

Banned
LovingSteam said:
Because I don't consider myself a republican. I consider myself more independent or libertarian.

Why? Have you ever voted for a libertarian or independent candidate? Are you listed at your polling place as an independent or libertarian? Or are you listed as a Republican?
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
If I can't get it through LovingSteam's head, then I don't know what will. I have a headache trying to convince him that he's wrong.



I was basically going to say the exact same thing. I'm democrat, yet I don't agree with all of Obama's policies. =\

How am I wrong? You said that he didn't have a problem with the surge itself. I said he did and his reasoning doesn't mean he isn't against the surge. Whatever reason one has for being against something doesn't cancel out that they are against that particular thing.
 
besada said:
Why? Have you ever voted for a libertarian or independent candidate? Are you listed at your polling place as an independent or libertarian? Or are you listed as a Republican?

In Washington I am registered as an independent.
 

explodet

Member
besada said:
I think they're the second or third place to volunteer their jail services. The entire notion that there's a danger keeping these guys in places like SuperMAX prisons is laughable.
Put 'em with the Brain Eater Guy! Terrorists got nothing compared to him!
 

besada

Banned
LovingSteam said:
In Washington I am registered as an independent.

You didn't answer the first question, I notice. How does one register as an Independent in Washington (state of District?) without voting for an Independent candidate?

Frankly, you seem like one of the many people running away from the label of Republican, while largely supporting Republican ideology. What I find inherently dishonest is that you got all whiny when someone called you a Republican, even though you voted Republican in the last two elections.

It's hard to take you seriously when you do stuff like that.
 
besada said:
You didn't answer the first question, I notice. How does one register as an Independent in Washington (state of District?) without voting for an Independent candidate?

Frankly, you seem like one of the many people running away from the label of Republican, while largely supporting Republican ideology. What I find inherently dishonest is that you got all whiny when someone called you a Republican, even though you voted Republican in the last two elections.

It's hard to take you seriously when you do stuff like that.

I am not running away from the label when I don't consider myself a Republican in the first place. Sorry that that bothers you. If you consider yourself a democrat and agree with what that party consists of, great. Why should I label myself a particular party supporter when I don't agree with many areas of the party? It's like asking what one considers to be Jewish. There are many who would say I am no longer Jewish because I have faith in Jesus. Many who are Christian want to label me as a messianic Jew. If you feel the need to label me as a repub, fine. I simply disagree with the label.
 

JayDubya

Banned
I had to be registered Republican to support the best libertarian candidate. There's an unneccessary word there - I had to be registered Republican to support the best candidate.

* * *

As far as the detainees go, I say charge them or let them go. If you're going to charge them, and they stand trial and lose, sure, bring them here and put them in a detention center with the room for it.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Wait, you actually voted McCain and Bush and consider yourself an "independent"?

The jokes, they won't stop.
 
explodet said:
Put 'em with the Brain Eater Guy! Terrorists got nothing compared to him!
This is actually a concern with bringing them to the USA . . . the other inmates may try to kill them if they somehow hear "they were related to 9/11" or something hearsay like that.
 
besada said:
Frankly, you seem like one of the many people running away from the label of Republican, while largely supporting Republican ideology.

That is often the default position of some Republicans in this thread (and a few libertarians) which is why I find it annoying to argue with some of them.
 
Stoney Mason said:
That is often the default positions of Republicans in this thread which is why I find it annoying to argue with some of them.

And I find it annoying that people prefer to put a label on others when they themselves don't agree with said label in the first place. It's a reflection more of those who choose to label than me for rejecting it. If you feel the need to label me as a) or b) to pigeon whole what I am trying to say then that is your choice. After all, it seems some here choose to argue more on party affiliation than anything else.
 
APF said:
If you're not interested in my views, why bother arguing with me across multiple posts? Why edit your frivolous posts in order to respond to my serious ones? You're trying too hard, for someone who is so unconcerned. You do care, either because you feel arguing with me makes you a better man, or because a part of you genuinely respects my opinion.
When I see a can on the sidewalk, sometimes I kick it.
 
LovingSteam said:
And I find it annoying that people prefer to put a label on others when they themselves don't agree with said label in the first place. It's a reflection more of those who choose to label than me for rejecting it. If you feel the need to label me as a) or b) to pigeon whole what I am trying to say then that is your choice. After all, it seems some here choose to argue more on party affiliation than anything else.
Then don't play the independent card. Play the I'm a conservative card and viciously attack the Republican party as much as you attack the Democratic party since they aren't actually a conservative party when they govern. Don't mispresent yourself. At least liberals in the thread don't pretend to not be liberals.

Not necessarily completely aimed at you but since you responded to my post you get the full brunt of the response post.
 

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
APF said:
If you're not interested in my views, why bother arguing with me across multiple posts? Why edit your frivolous posts in order to respond to my serious ones? You're trying too hard, for someone who is so unconcerned. You do care, either because you feel arguing with me makes you a better man, or because a part of you genuinely respects my opinion.
I rarely wade into PoliGAF now that the election is over and I'm enjoying the back and forth. Don't get it twisted, it's not as important as you make out. I do find it rather telling that you presented the two options that you did as the only possible reasons.

mamacint said:
When I see a can on the sidewalk, sometimes I kick it.
A slightly less couth version of what I just said.
 
Stoney Mason said:
Then don't play the independent card. Play the I'm a conservative card and viciously attack the Republican party as much as you attack the Democratic party since they aren't actually a conservative party when they govern. Don't mispresent yourself. At least liberals in the thread don't pretend to not be liberals.

Not necessarily completely aimed at you but since you responded to my post you get the full brunt of the response post.

I am a conservative and attacked the repubs during the stimulus package, attacked them during immigration, and many other times. However, I wasn't a member of GAF at that time so I do apologize that there is no paper trail to prove such backlash. I have had an issue with Bush for the stimulus package as much as I have had with Obama for TARP. I am just as disappointed with repubs infringing the rights of the individual be it gay marriage as I am with dem's who believe in imminent domain or taking away my right for the sake of the "environment".
 

besada

Banned
LovingSteam said:
Why should I label myself a particular party supporter when I don't agree with many areas of the party?

A better question is why you keep voting for a party whose ideals you don't support and whose name you run away from.

Your continuing refusal to answer whether you've ever voted for a libertarian or independent candidate can only lead me to believe you haven't, which would mean you've only ever voted Republican but consider yourself not a Republican.

I guess I'm not that surprised your logic throughout the thread has been twisted.
 
besada said:
A better question is why you keep voting for a party whose ideals you don't support and whose name you run away from.

Your continuing refusal to answer whether you've ever voted for a libertarian or independent candidate can only lead me to believe you haven't, which would mean you've only ever voted Republican but consider your not a Republican.

I guess I'm not that surprised your logic throughout the thread has been twisted.

Well, to begin, the first time I voted was in 2004 (didn't vote in 2000) and didn't really concern myself with politics until 2004. I didn't vote for anyone but Bush in 2004 because I don't believe in changing Presidents during war time and because I didn't agree with Kerry at all. I also was a Republican for the most part during that time. I leaned much more conservative on many areas, especially social policy than I do now. In 2008 I voted McCain even though I didn't really agree with him on most issues because I disagreed with Obama on more. Now, next election? I will have to wait and see who the nominee is for all parties before I decide who to vote for. It is possible that people change their political affiliation and philosophy as time goes on. This is why I haven't voted Lib or Ind. However in the last year or so I have become more appreciative of said parties and philosophies than Repubs.

This is the same as my religious philosophy on many issues. Before I got my masters I felt one way on many issues and when I completed it I felt a whole different way. Many things transpired in the last few years for my change in both areas.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
LovingSteam said:
And where have you been when you didn't read that I had a problem with Boehner saying the same thing? I was asked a question about the CIA and responded in like manner.
And again, I fail to see how or why the CIA is an infallible agency incapable of making mistakes, nor how it is somehow dangerous to accuse them of that. Or, in the case of these torture briefings, falsifying records.
 
scorcho said:
And again, I fail to see how or why the CIA is an infallible agency incapable of making mistakes. Or, in the case of Pelosi and these torture briefings, falsifying records.

I also said that you probably missed that I don't have a problem with politicians questioning the CIA as that is needed. My problem is doing it publicly. Calling the CIA liars and guilty of misleading for the world to hear is what I am at odds with. Do it privately to your hearts galore.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
When Republicans are using the CIA's briefing timeline against Pelosi for their political gain, she has every right to publicly attack the CIA's credibility on the issue, especially if there's good evidence for the charge.

Graham says he is not surprised at the CIA's claims, noting that within a week of its Sept. 27 briefing, the agency presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee its National Intelligence Estimate of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which was later shown to be flawed.

"I'm not impressed with the credibility of the CIA as it was being led in 2002," Graham says. "I think it had become an agency that instead of following the admonition to speak truth to power, it was trying to speak what it thought power wanted to hear."

You make absolutely no sense.
 
scorcho said:
When Republicans are using the CIA's briefing timeline against Pelosi for their political gain, she has every right to publicly attack the CIA's credibility on the issue, especially if there's good evidence for the charge.



You make absolutely no sense.

No, I just disagree with you. But hey, I shouldn't be surprised that you have made this personal since that is what you have been doing since my first post on this topic. Make it personal, throwing accusations at me, name calling, etc... It would be nice if you could stick to the issue instead of making it personal but obviously that isn't something that can take place here. And before you accuse me of not being able to handle it, know that I prefer to speak about the issue rather than personalize it. If I have done that to you or anyone here, I apologize as it wasn't my intention.
 

Zabka

Member
LovingSteam said:
I also said that you probably missed that I don't have a problem with politicians questioning the CIA as that is needed. My problem is doing it publicly. Calling the CIA liars and guilty of misleading for the world to hear is what I am at odds with. Do it privately to your hearts galore.
The CIA would never do such a thing! NEVER!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom