W Vindicated Again [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 04:32 PM

Seems like hardly a day goes by that we don't hear of the Obama administration embracing yet another Bush policy -- usually one Obama, himself, railed against during his candidacy.

Opposition to U.S. trial likely to keep mastermind of 9/11 attacks in detention (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111207508.html?hpid=topnews)

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will probably remain in military detention without trial for the foreseeable future, according to Obama administration officials.

The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York. There is also little internal support for resurrecting a military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The latter option would alienate liberal supporters.

What happened to that "rule of law" Obama claimed demanded terrorists receive a civilian trial? I'd prefer they take KSM out behind Gitmo and put a bullet in his head but, Obama decides to echo the Bush administration...yet again.

The administration asserts that it can hold Mohammed and other al-Qaeda operatives under the laws of war, a principle that has been upheld by the courts when Guantanamo Bay detainees have challenged their detention.
I wonder what the Washington Post and other liberal rags were saying when Bush relied on the courts for indefinitely detaining terrorists. Anybody remember?

Miss him yet?

DMX7

11-13-2010, 04:44 PM

Miss him yet?

Nobody misses that dumb piece of shit except for racist incest practicing Tea Baggers.

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 04:45 PM

Nobody misses that dumb piece of shit except for retarded incest practicing Tea Baggers.
I hope you're able to maintain that level of intensity all the way through the 2012 election cycle.

It should come in handy.

Parker2112

11-13-2010, 05:04 PM

this is not vindication. This is endictment of our govt. Obama/backers threw out the lure and pretty much guaranteed victory with their campaign platform. They said all the right things and the electorate swooned.

Then after election, the backers/wall st. pushed their agenda which was more of the same criminal bullshit we experienced under Bush and bore no relation to campaign promises (fraud, cronyism, corporate favoritism, criminal coverups, unnecessary war, civil liberty dissolution, etc).

Wake the fuck up. New boss is owned same as the old boss.

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 05:06 PM

Nobody misses that dumb piece of shit except for racist incest practicing Tea Baggers.
By the by, I'm not so sure Tea Party members were than enthused with President Bush. After all, his signing the TARP bailouts is what got their panties in a wad to begin with.

No, George W's economic policy that last year pretty much put him in league with the Democrats as far as Tea Partiers are concerned.

But, hey, I give you a 10 on the spittle-flecked boutonesque post. :toast

Parker2112

11-13-2010, 05:06 PM

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 05:08 PM

Parker2112

11-13-2010, 05:08 PM

more info here:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165885

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 05:09 PM

incidently its no suprise they pushed so hard with Obama, because they knew their fraud was about to hit the fan, and they knew they were about to need some serious cover. so they bought an executive for 4 years. pretty good return on investment if you look at the bailout result and the continued record profits through the Great Recession.

wake the fuck up.
Seriously, I hope all of you guys can keep this level of bouton-like frothing up for another two years. It will play well during the next Presidential election.

Alas, I fear only boutons is capable of that level of crazy.

Parker2112

11-13-2010, 05:10 PM

Maybe the cold, hard, reality of the situation just slapped Obama across the face.

Out of curiosity, what interest do the "backers/wall st." [entities] have in Khalid Sheik Mohammed's disposition?

you tell me?

Inform on his disposition. I dont follow "terror news."

Parker2112

11-13-2010, 05:14 PM

Maybe the cold, hard, reality of the situation just slapped Obama across the face.

it did, but it was the cold hard reality of...

Back when Obama was a freshman candidate for Senator he was selected to be keynote speaker for the Democratic national convention in 2004. A nobody from Chicago was plucked from midair and cast into the most important slot in the convention. How he would up there remains to be revealed.

Just a little over one year after being elected as a junior senator, in 2006 Obama was the featured guest before a private gathering of the Goldman Sachs executives in Chicago, an honor unheard of for someone that politically insignificant, speaking before the most powerful financial firm on Wall Street and one of the most powerful in the world. This was quietly reported in Bloomberg News.

It was the launch of his presidential campaign and Goldman executives soon gave over $800,000 to jump start the Obama presidential bid along with collecting millions of dollars from their fellow Wall Street firms and clients. Oh yes, Robert Rubin became the Obama economic expert, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Billionaire Warren Buffet became his most trusted economic advisor, a man who was to invest $5 billion in Goldman Sachs in the height of the economic meltdown. Yet Buffet was also a personal guest of Lord Rothschild at a private conference at his English estate.

The story only gets better. On May 3, 2007, Barack Obama attended an event at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan that was not on his public schedule and is only now surfacing. The exclusive private dinner was for Goldman Sachs traders and featured a discussion on issues by Obama moderated for the Wall Street firm by NBC's Tom Brokaw. Once again the circumstances are strange as a year later Brokaw would be moderating the second presidential debate between Obama and McCain and the economy and Wall Street were the main points of discussion. Of course the debate commission and McCain were unaware that Obama and Brokaw had already held a practice session the year earlier.

Then comes the financial meltdown which can be traced back to a couple of major events. The first major change to the regulatory framework that opened the door to Enron and the sub-prime crisis occurred in 1991, when Goldman Sachs, through a subsidiary called J. Aron, argued that even though it was an investment bank it should be granted the same exemption given to commercial traders in the commodity markets because it was in the business of buying commodities as a middleman. It was granted by the CFTC.

A second turning point came when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, that formally allowed investors to trade energy commodities on private electronic platforms outside the purview of regulators. Critics have called this piece of legislation the "Enron loophole," saying Enron played a role in crafting it. In the months after the act was passed, private electronic trading platforms sprang up across the country, challenging the dominance of NYMEX.

....

Do we really know anything about the long term relationship between Obama and Goldman Sachs other than their massive fund raising for him? Since he has been secretly guided and financed by Goldman people from the very beginning of his presidential campaign were they influential in his economic platform? Obama never questioned the role of Goldman in the sub-prime fiasco nor in manipulating the oil futures prices. When Goldman specialists tried to drive the price of oil up to $200 a barrel this year Obama never said a word.

Long before this time the Goldman Sachs Foundation had quietly channeled funds to Colin Powell's new group, America's Promise and Powell himself was collecting honorariums from $50,000 to $100,000 for speaking to various groups including Goldman sponsored events. At some point between the time he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then left government, only to come back as Bush Secretary of State, Powell acquired between $1 million and $5 million of stock in giant defense contractor General Dynamics, a firm in which the Roshschilds have extensive ownership. Powell eventually would be converted from a McCain financial contributor and friend to endorser of Obama in less than a year.

As for the Rothschilds and McCain, it was not until this year that they held a fund raiser for him in London hosted by Lord Jacob Rothschild and his son, Nathaniel Rothschild in the posh London Spencer House on March 28, 2008. As I said at the beginning, the Rothschilds are the oldest, biggest and most powerful of all financial houses and have long chosen to remain in the background while other firms fronted their interests.

....

In spite of being foreign based the Rothschilds have been one of the chief beneficiaries of the economic crisis in America as J.P. Morgan and Barclays, firms with significant equity held by the Rothschilds, were able to gobble up Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual in sweetheart deals for a fraction of their asset values in the midst of the crisis.

So what control do we really have over the election, over the president and over the Congress? We know control has been lost of the economy, of world trade and of international finance. Most government institutions seem to be operating at the whim and call of the financial giants. Can we expect more after this election? Is America for sale to the highest bidder and is Obama's $500 million campaign the highest bid? All this bodes ill for the liberal, left wing groups and unions rallying around Obama as they may very well be discarded when they have served the purpose of winning the elections.

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 05:18 PM

more info here:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165885

So, you link to another Spurstalk.com thread with a link to someplace called bignews.biz?

About Us

Bignews.biz is a free press release and news distribution service.

Our founders have over 25 years of experience working for news organizations such as the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press.

The purpose of this site is to act as a place where businesses, individuals and organizations can post news and press releases.

There are currently about 27,000 registered publishers using this site to distribute their press releases. We then distribute this news to the media, the public, search engines, Web sites and social media outlets on their behalf.

We have some guidelines for the types of press releases we will accept. Please review our Terms of Service page for more information.

If you have any questions, feel free to use our online Contact Us form. Our postal mailing address is:

BigNews.biz LLC
16 Heath Place
Garden City, New York
11530-3005 US
As best as I can tell, the story linked in your previous post, from this site, has no byline. I can't tell who wrote. Can you?

And, a website that has, in it's banner, "Free Press Release and World News Distribution Service" that brags about having 27,000 publishers can't be that discriminating.

Sounds like a propaganda outlet if ever there was one.

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 05:19 PM

you tell me?

Inform on his disposition. I dont follow "terror news."
God, it's going to be an entertaining two years. Maybe better than the previous two.

boutons_deux

11-13-2010, 05:20 PM

Yoni proves again how eternally wrong he is, always a ranting dubya sucker.

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 05:25 PM

But, hey Parker! It's a nice touch that Goldman Sachs is such a big advertiser at BigNews.biz!

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 05:28 PM

you tell me?
Fuck if I know. You're the one that brought "backers/wall st." into this thread, not me.

Inform on his disposition. I dont follow "terror news."
He's still being detained at Gitmo...months after Obama bravely declared he would receive a civilian trial in New York City.

Winehole23

11-13-2010, 05:28 PM

I don't see how Obama being too cowardly and unprincipled to try KSM as a criminal vindicates his predecessor in the least.

How does it vindicate Bush?

Parker2112

11-13-2010, 06:30 PM

Fuck if I know. You're the one that brought "backers/wall st." into this thread, not me.

He's still being detained at Gitmo...months after Obama bravely declared he would receive a civilian trial in New York City.

Obama runs shit. He is a front for Wall St and the MIC at this point. And both profit from the war on terror. he may want an open trial but he may not be able to get what he wants in light of those who are really in power in our federal govt.

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 06:36 PM

I don't see how Obama being too cowardly and unprincipled to try KSM as a criminal vindicates his predecessor in the least.

How does it vindicate Bush?
He seems fairly comfortable using the Bush administration's defense for detaining KSM -- particularly after he spent the better part of 18 months bashing it.

I'd say that's vindication. If it just a matter of cowardice and lack of principles, I think he would have had no problem making up a lie that wouldn't associate him with policies he spent two years bashing.

ElNono

11-13-2010, 06:39 PM

How does it vindicate Bush?

ElNono

11-13-2010, 06:42 PM

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 06:44 PM

Repeating Winehole
Okay, I'll write very slowly.

When someone who has criticized another's actions, incessantly, over a long period of time, adopts those actions, himself -- and both people occupied a unique position from which only they could know the realities that drove their decisions.

That's vindication.

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 06:47 PM

You should also read what you post, especially the part you bold:

The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York.

So the opposition to the trial is not by the actual administration, but lawmakers somewhere else.
I never said the administration opposed the trial.

It was to this quote I was referring when I asserted his adoption of a Bush-era policy:

The administration asserts that it can hold Mohammed and other al-Qaeda operatives under the laws of war, a principle that has been upheld by the courts when Guantanamo Bay detainees have challenged their detention.
If that's the case, why all the caterwauling when Bush asserted the same thing?

ElNono

11-13-2010, 06:49 PM

Okay, I'll write very slowly.

When someone who has criticized another's actions, incessantly, over a long period of time, adopts those actions, himself -- and both people occupied a unique position from which only they could know the realities that drove their decisions.

That's vindication.

No, repeating somebody's else coward actions is simply being another coward.
Vindication is to free from allegation or blame. As far as this is concerned:
1) It is not Obama or his administration that oppose the federal trial
2) At most, you could claim that by not proceeding with the trial he's attributing himself the same blame that was attributed to Bush.

Vindication is not the word you're looking for Yoni.

ElNono

11-13-2010, 06:57 PM

I never said the administration opposed the trial.

What happened to that "rule of law" Obama claimed demanded terrorists receive a civilian trial?

It was to this quote I was referring when I asserted his adoption of a Bush-era policy:
If that's the case, why all the caterwauling when Bush asserted the same thing?

Because Bush held detainees indefinitely without evidence, didn't classify them as military prisoners, and denied them the basic challenge of such detention (habeas). In light of the amount of released prisoners from Gitmo, one would correctly assume that what Bush did was indeed an aberration.

The question with these guys is not if the administration has evidence against them, but when and where are their going to be tried. Is it going to be a federal court? Is it going to be a military court? That sort of thing.

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 06:59 PM

No, repeating somebody's else coward actions is simply being another coward.

Vindication is to free from allegation or blame.
I would assert that the circle of individuals that could possibly know what drives the decisions of a President is rather small. I don't think you have enough information -- just as I didn't think Obama had enough information the entire time he was criticizing the administration -- to know if the current policy on terrorist detention was the right one.

If you want to believe Obama is a coward, to boot, I won't stop you.

As far as this is concerned:

1) It is not Obama or his administration that oppose the federal trial

2) At most, you could claim that by not proceeding with the trial he's attributing himself the same blame that was attributed to Bush.
Or, he's recognizing the same limitations already discovered by the previous administration and is acting accordingly, including using the same rationale for continued detention -- without trial -- of KSM. If he wants to blame it on Congress and other Democrats (Yes, I'm looking at you Mr. Shumer), better yet.

Vindication is not the word you're looking for Yoni.
But, it is. He is vindicated in the one arena it matters; the Oval Office. If nothing else, Barack Obama knows [because of this and other policies that he criticized only to adopt after taking office] that maybe, just maybe, there's more to being President than he thought.

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 07:02 PM

Because Bush held detainees indefinitely without evidence, didn't classify them as military prisoners, and denied them the basic challenge of such detention (habeas). In light of the amount of released prisoners from Gitmo, one would correctly assume that what Bush did was indeed an aberration.

The question with these guys is not if the administration has evidence against them, but when and where are their going to be tried. Is it going to be a federal court? Is it going to be a military court? That sort of thing.
Smart money says it eventually ends up being a military tribunal with a whole butt-load of executions to follow. How far down the road will that be? Who knows and who cares. They can rot at Gitmo for all I care. Hell, I wouldn't mind if they used them for target practice.

The first president that deigns to try and bring the worst of the worst to a civil trial will be run out of office on a rail.

ChumpDumper

11-13-2010, 07:02 PM

So the fact that this administration turns out to be as cowardly as Bush was in the face of political opposition to the rule of law, it's vindication?

Damn, yoni is stupid.

ChumpDumper

11-13-2010, 07:03 PM

Why isn't the American system of justice good enough for these people who committed crimes against America?

ElNono

11-13-2010, 07:12 PM

I would assert that the circle of individuals that could possibly know what drives the decisions of a President is rather small. I don't think you have enough information -- just as I didn't think Obama had enough information the entire time he was criticizing the administration -- to know if the current policy on terrorist detention was the right one.

This has nothing to do with privileged information. Such information is used all the time in courts and protected accordingly. Again, the fact that judges decided to release the supposed treats after reviewing the cases should tell you all you need to know.

And again, you misplace the blame. It's not the administration that does not want to proceed with the federal trial, it's the opposition from lawmakers somewhere else that makes pursuing that avenue a waste of time.

If you want to believe Obama is a coward, to boot, I won't stop you.

I believe the American system of justice would be well served by tackling a trial like this. And I think the administration would be cowards if they don't pursue that avenue despite opposition.

Or, he's recognizing the same limitations already discovered by the previous administration and is acting accordingly, including using the same rationale for continued detention -- without trial -- of KSM. If he wants to blame it on Congress and other Democrats (Yes, I'm looking at you Mr. Shumer), better yet.

The previous administration simply did not want courts involved at all, neither military or civilian. That's why they invented a parallel system of justice which they thought would rubber-stamp anything they claimed.
Fortunately for America, it did not work that way.

But, it is. He is vindicated in the one arena it matters; the Oval Office. If nothing else, Barack Obama knows [because of this and other policies that he criticized only to adopt after taking office] that maybe, just maybe, there's more to being President than he thought.

This doesn't free the Bush administration from blame. If anything, it appends the Obama administration to it. Again, you need to look up what vindication means.

ElNono

11-13-2010, 07:18 PM

Smart money says it eventually ends up being a military tribunal with a whole butt-load of executions to follow. How far down the road will that be? Who knows and who cares. They can rot at Gitmo for all I care. Hell, I wouldn't mind if they used them for target practice.

The question is why they haven't been tried yet. Either military or civilian.
Why haven't them been tried yet, Yoni? Do you want them to be tried or you want them to be simply convicted?

The first president that deigns to try and bring the worst of the worst to a civil trial will be run out of office on a rail.

Baloney. Civilians have tried the worst of the worst many times. Serial murderers, rapists, cannibals, terrorists like the Unabomber.
Why is it that now they're not good enough to try these guys?

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 07:19 PM

ChumpDumper

11-13-2010, 07:20 PM

When did we declare war? For which country were they fighting a war?

And lol valuable intelligence. Which blog ordered you to believe that?

ElNono

11-13-2010, 07:21 PM

I say, if military tribunals and execution is good enough for the spies FDR caught IN AMERICA, it's good enough for the goat dung we've hauled to Gitmo from distant battlefields.

Except for the few we've waterboarded to gain valuable intelligence, I think it would have been far better to have left them face down in their own pools of blood wherever it was we found them.

These scumbags didn't commit crimes; they committed acts of war.

Then why didn't the Bush administration try them under military law?
Why is it that these military commissions had to be created if there was a fair and working military system of justice in place Yoni?

ChumpDumper

11-13-2010, 07:22 PM

I am continually amazed by the complete lack of faith people like yoni have in the American system of justice.

They would rather summarily execute criminals just like fundamentalist Muslims.

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 07:23 PM

Then why didn't the Bush administration try them under military law?
Why is it that these military commissions had to be created if there was a fair and working military system of justice in place Yoni?
Because of whiny Liberals.

I think Bush was content with letting them rot at Gitmo until he could figure out an inexpensive way to dispose of the bodies.

ChumpDumper

11-13-2010, 07:25 PM

If yoni is so certain of their guilt, there is no reason not to try them and let them legitimately rot in prison.

ElNono

11-13-2010, 07:26 PM

Because of whiny Liberals.

GOP controlled both Congress and the Presidency. Can't pin this one on liberals Yoni.

I think Bush was content with letting them rot at Gitmo until he could figure out an inexpensive way to dispose of the bodies.

Why did Bush hate the American justice system? Why do you hate the American justice system?

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 07:29 PM

GOP controlled both Congress and the Presidency. Can't pin this one on liberals Yoni.
They were really, really loud.

Why did Bush hate the American justice system? Why do you hate the American justice system?
I don't hate it. It's for trying criminals, not combatants.

ElNono

11-13-2010, 07:45 PM

They were really, really loud.

That didn't stop Bush from doing pretty much whatever he wanted in this topic. Yet, he didn't try them in any established system of justice. Why Yoni?

I don't hate it. It's for trying criminals, not combatants.

The military system of justice is part of the justice system in America. Why was it not good enough to try these guys under Bush? What isn't it good enough to try these people now?

Are you sure you want to try these people, Yoni? You know they get to defend themselves on a military trial too, right?
Or you're just looking for a guilty verdict without a trial?

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 08:39 PM

That didn't stop Bush from doing pretty much whatever he wanted in this topic. Yet, he didn't try them in any established system of justice. Why Yoni?
It's ancient history but, weren't the courts involved?

The military system of justice is part of the justice system in America. Why was it not good enough to try these guys under Bush? What isn't it good enough to try these people now?

Are you sure you want to try these people, Yoni? You know they get to defend themselves on a military trial too, right?
Or you're just looking for a guilty verdict without a trial?
I think they should be summarily executed.

DarrinS

11-13-2010, 09:51 PM

Nobody misses that dumb piece of shit except for racist incest practicing Tea Baggers.

Wow. Nice.

Yonivore

11-13-2010, 10:11 PM

Wow. Nice.
I did that.

ChumpDumper

11-13-2010, 10:48 PM

I am continually amazed by the complete lack of faith people like yoni have in the American system of justice.

They would rather summarily execute criminals just like fundamentalist Muslims.

I think they should be summarily executed.:lol Called it.

yoni hates America.

DMX7

11-13-2010, 10:53 PM

In a growing number of respects, Yoni is becoming just as bad as the fundamentalist Muslims.

Congratulations! :toast

ElNono

11-13-2010, 11:18 PM

It's ancient history but, weren't the courts involved?

Not if Bush had his way. Thankfully he didn't get his way.

I think they should be summarily executed.

You're no better than them. No surprises there.

Wild Cobra

11-14-2010, 02:02 PM

Seriously, I hope all of you guys can keep this level of bouton-like frothing up for another two years. It will play well during the next Presidential election.

Alas, I fear only boutons is capable of that level of crazy.
Yes, if that little nut keeps holding his ground, he may someday be a shrub.

George Gervin's Afro

11-14-2010, 03:07 PM

Yonivore

11-14-2010, 03:20 PM

what happened to the wmds? we missed those..
None were found. You really weren't paying attention, were you?

clambake

11-14-2010, 03:44 PM

so this thread is just a disturbing love letter from yoni.

ChumpDumper

11-14-2010, 03:51 PM

None were found. You really weren't paying attention, were you?Bush said Iraq didn't have them.

You weren't really paying attention, were you?

Ignignokt

11-14-2010, 04:19 PM

Whether this thread is bullshit or not, could DMX7 and Chumpdumper try to cover the fact that they are intimate lovers by not posting together at all times. CHumpdumper, get your own laptop, DMX7 works for his own toys, you should make something of yourself and start pulling your half.

Ignignokt

11-14-2010, 04:20 PM

I knew gay fantasies occupied your mind.

-Chumpdumper

ChumpDumper

11-14-2010, 06:31 PM

The proof is in your posts.

Yonivore

11-14-2010, 08:44 PM

:lmao

0BAQE7kCW4s

Winehole23

11-15-2010, 04:00 AM

Vindication is not the word you're looking for Yoni.The argument I made before the election was that if Obama didn't prosecute arbitrary detention and torture as crimes, they would soon acquire the respectable patina of custom.

That's a far cry from vindication IHMO, but it is institutional validity. The Bush precedents vis-a-vis rule of law and extra-constitutional power are legally validated by his successor's acquiescence to them. For the time being.

That's the really sad thing. Yoni celebrates it as vindication, but I see it as just another sign of the death of the old American republic. We used to give the bad guy a fair shake.

Now, like cowards, we say we can't afford to anymore.

Winehole23

11-15-2010, 04:13 AM

(drunk)

Winehole23

11-15-2010, 05:38 AM

Great Britain, India, Indonesia and Pakistan (among many others) still prosecute terrorists as criminals.

Why can't we?

Yonivore

11-15-2010, 07:53 AM

The argument I made before the election was that if Obama didn't prosecute arbitrary detention and torture as crimes, they would soon acquire the respectable patina of custom.

That's a far cry from vindication IHMO, but it is institutional validity. The Bush precedents vis-a-vis rule of law and extra-constitutional power are legally validated by his successor's acquiescence to them. For the time being.

That's the really sad thing. Yoni celebrates it as vindication, but I see it as just another sign of the death of the old American republic. We used to give the bad guy a fair shake.

Now, like cowards, we say we can't afford to anymore.
You say all of that as if we've tried enemy combatants in American courts before and have somehow taken a step backward from that.

When, in our history, have we ever put the likes of KSM on trial in an American courtroom?

Yonivore

11-15-2010, 07:58 AM

Great Britain, India, Indonesia and Pakistan (among many others) still prosecute terrorists as criminals.

Why can't we?
Because we're not idiots. Well, most of us anyway.

coyotes_geek

11-15-2010, 09:15 AM

Miss him yet?

Miss him? It's like he never left.

This issue isn't a vindication of Bush, it's a condemnation of Obama.

ElNono

11-15-2010, 11:04 AM

Miss him? It's like he never left.

This issue isn't a vindication of Bush, it's a condemnation of Obama.

Basically. Seems it's too complicated for Yoni to parse that though.

ElNono

11-15-2010, 11:09 AM

The argument I made before the election was that if Obama didn't prosecute arbitrary detention and torture as crimes, they would soon acquire the respectable patina of custom.

That's a far cry from vindication IHMO, but it is institutional validity. The Bush precedents vis-a-vis rule of law and extra-constitutional power are legally validated by his successor's acquiescence to them. For the time being.

That's the really sad thing. Yoni celebrates it as vindication, but I see it as just another sign of the death of the old American republic. We used to give the bad guy a fair shake.

Now, like cowards, we say we can't afford to anymore.

Right. That said, it makes the Obama's administration another turd sandwich, but it doesn't makes Bush's turd sandwich more palatable.

It's still a turd whichever way you look at it. I don't personally think it legitimizes anything. I'll be more worried when and if it's actually legitimized by the courts though.

ChumpDumper

11-15-2010, 12:23 PM

Yonivore

11-15-2010, 12:24 PM

Basically. Seems it's too complicated for Yoni to parse that though.
I'm understanding the issue just fine.

Barack Obama is continuing an apparently legal and constitutional policy of George W. Bush's that he railed against while running for President. Just because you disagree with the policy and believe that now makes Obama the scum of the earth doesn't make it any less of a vindication.

And, it should vindicate me in the eyes of those now pissed at Barry. I've been saying he's scum since the campaign.

George Gervin's Afro

11-15-2010, 01:47 PM

I'm understanding the issue just fine.

Barack Obama is continuing an apparently legal and constitutional policy of George W. Bush's that he railed against while running for President. Just because you disagree with the policy and believe that now makes Obama the scum of the earth doesn't make it any less of a vindication.

And, it should vindicate me in the eyes of those now pissed at Barry. I've been saying he's scum since the campaign.

nah scummy people start uncessary wars..

ElNono

11-15-2010, 01:55 PM

I'm understanding the issue just fine.

You clearly do not.

Barack Obama is continuing an apparently legal and constitutional policy of George W. Bush's that he railed against while running for President. Just because you disagree with the policy and believe that now makes Obama the scum of the earth doesn't make it any less of a vindication.

Considering you're not a lawyer, your thoughts about what's legal or constitutional are just as good as mine. It's not like government lawyers haven't been wrong before on what they can get away with, especially Bush's lawyers (see habeas case).

However, as I pointed out earlier, it's not the administration that doesn't want to try these people. They just don't have the balls to do so despite opposition in other powerful places. That's to me what makes them cowards.

And, it should vindicate me in the eyes of those now pissed at Barry. I've been saying he's scum since the campaign.

If we have to start a vindication thread for every time you've been wrong, we would overload this place...

You can brag and tell everybody that "Obama sucks". Go right ahead. But please don't come telling me Bush wasn't a terrible president, or because this guy does the same shit, he's all of a sudden vindicated.

Yonivore

11-15-2010, 02:11 PM

You clearly do not.
Sure I do.

Considering you're not a lawyer, your thoughts about what's legal or constitutional are just as good as mine. It's not like government lawyers haven't been wrong before on what they can get away with, especially Bush's lawyers (see habeas case).

However, as I pointed out earlier, it's not the administration that doesn't want to try these people. They just don't have the balls to do so despite opposition in other powerful places. That's to me what makes them cowards.
They're still not trying them. I don't care what is their lame excuse.

And, if there's no statute being applied to force the administration to try or release KSM; then, it's legal and constitutional until a court of competent jurisdiction decides otherwise.

If we have to start a vindication thread for every time you've been wrong, we would overload this place...

You can brag and tell everybody that "Obama sucks". Go right ahead. But please don't come telling me Bush wasn't a terrible president, or because this guy does the same shit, he's all of a sudden vindicated.
Bush wasn't a terrible president and because this guy does the same "shit" doesn't vindicate President Bush.

What vindicates President Bush is that this guy railed against the very policies he's now employing. That's vindication.

coyotes_geek

11-15-2010, 02:21 PM

What vindicates President Bush is that this guy railed against the very policies he's now employing. That's vindication.

Actually it just means Obama chose a very poor role model to pattern his administration after.

LnGrrrR

11-15-2010, 02:26 PM

Yoni bragging about pussy Congressman shying away from the American civil law system.

Yonivore

11-15-2010, 02:29 PM

Actually it just means Obama chose a very poor role model to pattern his administration after.
Especially since he spent 18 months blasting the administration on the campaign trail and the past two years blaming him. Makes you wonder, if he hates the previous administration so much, why would he continue policies that he so vehemently opposed prior to taking office.

I think it's because, as President, he now knows those are the best courses of action.

I said, after the election, Barack Obama was going to get slapped in the face with some cold hard realities when he stepped into the office on January 21, 2009.

All evidence suggests that's exactly what happened.

ChumpDumper

11-15-2010, 02:30 PM

Eh, in this case Obama is a coward just like Bush and yoni.

All evidence suggests that's exactly what happened.

Yonivore

11-15-2010, 02:30 PM

Yoni bragging about pussy Congressman shying away from the American civil law system.
These people didn't commit crimes, the committed acts of war. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me when we've ever tried enemy combatants in an American courtroom.

And, I'm not bragging on anyone...I just happen to agree with the outcome.

ChumpDumper

11-15-2010, 02:33 PM

These people didn't commit crimes, the committed acts of war. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me when we've ever tried enemy combatants in an American courtroom.:lol yoni read my response and moved his goalpost.
You say all of that as if we've tried enemy combatants in American courts before and have somehow taken a step backward from that.

When, in our history, have we ever put the likes of KSM on trial in an American courtroom?

1996, you idiot.

LnGrrrR

11-15-2010, 04:00 PM

Didn't we just put that guy who tried to set off a car bomb in NY through the legal system?

Yonivore

11-15-2010, 04:03 PM

Didn't we just put that guy who tried to set off a car bomb in NY through the legal system?
So? How many of the detainees were captured by American law enforcement, on American soil?

And, if you could prove he was acting on orders of a foreign entity, I wouldn't be in favor of a trial in an American courtroom. I'd chunk his ass in Gitmo, as well.

But, no one asked me.

LnGrrrR

11-15-2010, 04:13 PM

So? How many of the detainees were captured by American law enforcement, on American soil?

And, if you could prove he was acting on orders of a foreign entity, I wouldn't be in favor of a trial in an American courtroom. I'd chunk his ass in Gitmo, as well.

But, no one asked me.

You asked about enemy combatants. I provided one. Not my fault if you changed the goalposts.

How do you know all those in GTMO were acting under orders from a foreign entity? Oh wait, that's right; you don't. You just accept the government's word that they're bad guys.

And here I thought you were a conservative, who doesn't trust government to work correctly.

Yonivore

11-15-2010, 04:19 PM

You asked about enemy combatants. I provided one. Not my fault if you changed the goalposts.
For all I know he was a criminal -- sympathetic to radical Islam -- trying to detonate a bomb in Times Square. That doesn't make him an enemy combatant.

How do you know all those in GTMO were acting under orders from a foreign entity? Oh wait, that's right; you don't. You just accept the government's word that they're bad guys.

And here I thought you were a conservative, who doesn't trust government to work correctly.
Were any of them taken into custody on American soil?

LnGrrrR

11-15-2010, 04:59 PM

For all I know he was a criminal -- sympathetic to radical Islam -- trying to detonate a bomb in Times Square. That doesn't make him an enemy combatant.

What DOES make one an enemy combatant?

Were any of them taken into custody on American soil?

You're a little behind on your history.

José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_citizen) convicted of aiding terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism).
Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_witness) until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) designated him an enemy combatant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant) and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_of_the_law). Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" after his arrest in 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radioactive "dirty bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb)" attack. That charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court after pressure from civil liberties groups.

Derrp.

Yonivore

11-15-2010, 06:11 PM

What DOES make one an enemy combatant?

You're a little behind on your history.

Derrp.

And, if you could prove he was acting on orders of a foreign entity, I wouldn't be in favor of a trial in an American courtroom. I'd chunk his ass in Gitmo, as well.
Convicted of aiding terrorists of foreign origin, I believe. Derrp.

Winehole23

11-15-2010, 06:29 PM

In an American courtroom. That wasn't so hard, was it?

LnGrrrR

11-15-2010, 06:40 PM

Convicted of aiding terrorists of foreign origin, I believe. Derrp.

Yup, sure was convicted. But he was arrested in America. So what exactly makes one an enemy combatant? Could you spell it out for me?

LnGrrrR

11-15-2010, 06:40 PM

In an American courtroom. That wasn't so hard, was it?

Aww WH23, I was wondering if Yoni would've figured that out himself.

ElNono

11-15-2010, 07:22 PM

Bush wasn't a terrible president and because this guy does the same "shit" doesn't vindicate President Bush.

No, Bush was, without a shadow of a doubt, a terrible president.

What vindicates President Bush is that this guy railed against the very policies he's now employing. That's vindication.

No, it doesn't remove blame from Bush (that is what vindication means). It puts blame squarely on Obama.
When we look back 10 years from now on this subject, Bush will still be a turd, and so will Obama, who had the chance to do something about it, but didn't have the balls to do so.

ElNono

11-15-2010, 07:23 PM

In an American courtroom. That wasn't so hard, was it?

You should start a vindication thread.

Winehole23

11-15-2010, 08:13 PM

Nah. Yoni making my own point for me despite his consciously taken opposition to it, is enough.

Winehole23

11-15-2010, 09:08 PM

(Derrp de derrp)

Yonivore

11-15-2010, 11:19 PM

Yup, sure was convicted. But he was arrested in America. So what exactly makes one an enemy combatant? Could you spell it out for me?
And, like I said, I wouldn't care where he was arrested if he was acting in concert with a foreign terrorist organization. Throw his ass in Gitmo. Hell, take him out back and shoot him.

ChumpDumper

11-15-2010, 11:24 PM

And, like I said, I wouldn't care where he was arrested if he was acting in concert with a foreign terrorist organization. Throw his ass in Gitmo. Hell, take him out back and shoot him.Too bad we've already successfully tried such people in federal court. Your ignorance of that fact is not an argument.

ElNono

11-15-2010, 11:27 PM

And, like I said, I wouldn't care where he was arrested if he was acting in concert with a foreign terrorist organization. Throw his ass in Gitmo. Hell, take him out back and shoot him.

Too bad we've already successfully tried such people in federal court. Your ignorance of that fact is not an argument.

LnGrrrR

11-16-2010, 01:05 PM

And, like I said, I wouldn't care where he was arrested if he was acting in concert with a foreign terrorist organization. Throw his ass in Gitmo. Hell, take him out back and shoot him.

Thanks for admitting that the American court system works for prosecuting enemy combatants. I guess you just dislike our system to law. Fair enough.

RandomGuy

11-16-2010, 01:31 PM

You say all of that as if we've tried enemy combatants in American courts before and have somehow taken a step backward from that.

When, in our history, have we ever put the likes of KSM on trial in an American courtroom?

1996, you idiot.

I think that elevating Al Qaeda members to the status of "enemy combatant", rather than that of simple criminals we have grievously harmed our rule of law.

Conservative inability to correctly frame the problem, and that stems directly from a Bush-ism, i.e. the "war on terror", is *the* main thing that has made a lot of our response to this issue less effective than it would have been otherwise.

We are not fighting a war on a tactic. We are fighting a war against an idea.

That idea is that "The USA is evil". No more, no less. Sure, it is a bit more nuanced, but it can be fairly stated in that manner.

You can't fight that idea with bullets. That, paradoxically, makes the idea more credible in the minds of the people that matter.

You fight that idea with acts of good, and by living up to the principles that we say we stand for. Sure it sounds touchy-feely, and that is why it is an anethema to "conservatives", who underestimate the power of moral authority.

LnGrrrR

11-16-2010, 03:47 PM

Given Yoni's stance, we should probably be throwing all members of the Mafia in GTMO too.

CosmicCowboy

04-04-2011, 01:14 PM

KSM to be tried by military commission at Gitmo; Holder set to make announcement today.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20050405-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

CosmicCowboy

04-04-2011, 01:22 PM

I'm sure it's just circumstantial that Obama just announced his re-election campaign.

Winehole23

04-04-2011, 01:25 PM

The pre 9/11 way was better.

MannyIsGod

04-04-2011, 01:26 PM

Why do you think its not circumstantial? Do you think this helps him?

CosmicCowboy

04-04-2011, 01:31 PM

Why do you think its not circumstantial? Do you think this helps him?

If you go by the polls, yes. They were pretty overwhelming against civil trials in the US.

jack sommerset

04-04-2011, 01:33 PM

If you go by the polls, yes. They were pretty overwhelming against civil trials in the US.

Polls...:toast

MannyIsGod

04-04-2011, 01:33 PM

LnGrrrR

04-04-2011, 02:19 PM

Miss him yet?

Why would I miss Bush? He would have done the same stupid thing that Obama is doing.

CosmicCowboy

04-04-2011, 03:01 PM

You think the average person out on the street even knows this? Or you think it will factor in months from now much less years from now?

I think its a coincidence because I don't think this helps him. The only people who decide their vote on items like this are people who are already pissed at him because of Libya etc etc.

Of course. How long does it take from announcing it's been approved to actually having a trial and conviction? 18 months? 2 years? Nothing like a good old "tough on terror" murder conviction when you are in a tough re-election race.

MannyIsGod

04-04-2011, 03:10 PM

Of course. How long does it take from announcing it's been approved to actually having a trial and conviction? 18 months? 2 years? Nothing like a good old "tough on terror" murder conviction when you are in a tough re-election race.

You're really really reaching that they're using an issue extremely low on the totem pole in a way that is impossible to orchestrate.

cheguevara

04-04-2011, 03:10 PM

Nobody misses that dumb piece of shit except for racist incest practicing Tea Baggers.

Stringer_Bell

04-04-2011, 03:26 PM

If you go by the polls, yes. They were pretty overwhelming against civil trials in the US.

And why would "polls" be against trying terrorists in OUR courts, with OUR laws? Are people scared the hadjis will come out of the shadows w/ an even bigger bone to pick? :wow

It's also prolly less expensive to put them before a military court. We do have a deficit to think about!

George Gervin's Afro

04-04-2011, 03:27 PM

Polls...:toast

jack was for polls before he was against them..today he likes them..tomorrow he doesn't..

jack sommerset

04-04-2011, 04:12 PM

jack was for polls before he was against them..today he likes them..tomorrow he doesn't..

You were a retarded douchebag last year, yesterday, today and will be tomorrow. You have zero clue what you talk about. Lets review how you came to this conclusion.

Most Americans didnot want the health care bill. You, like the retarded douchebag you are used some gayass left wing talking points that barry should not base his decision on DAILY polls when people were discussing health care. I used polls that covered months and now years, elections in Virginia, New Jersey, the special election in Massachutes among a few things back then and of course the 2010 beat down the repugs laid on barry and the dems to show you most americans didn't want that health care bill. You ignored all the facts and stuck to "So, do you think Barry should make his DAILY decisions on polls?" You retarded douchebag.

I can't stop and correct you everyday that you talk about me which is alot, so I don't. I believe in polls if done right. Pretty simple for normal common sense folks but for retarded douchebags like yourself.............not so much.

By the way. You got some sort of single white female thing going on with Chump here. It's creepy. Stop acting like him. That's his thing.

Barry finally listened and gitmo is open and ready for the 9/11 trials.

George Gervin's Afro

04-04-2011, 04:19 PM

You were a retarded douchebag last year, yesterday, today and will be tomorrow. You have zero clue what you talk about. Lets review how you came to this conclusion.

Most Americans didnot want the health care bill. You, like the retarded douchebag you are used some gayass left wing talking points that barry should not base his decision on DAILY polls when people were discussing health care. I used polls that covered months and now years, elections in Virginia, New Jersey, the special election in Massachutes among a few things back then and of course the 2010 beat down the repugs laid on barry and the dems to show you most americans didn't want that health care bill. You ignored all the facts and stuck to "So, do you think Barry should make his DAILY decisions on polls?" You retarded douchebag.

I can't stop and correct you everyday that you talk about me which is alot, so I don't. I believe in polls if done right. Pretty simple for normal common sense folks but for retarded douchebags like yourself.............not so much.

By the way. You got some sort of single white female thing going on with Chump here. It's creepy. Stop acting like him. That's his thing.

Barry finally listened and gitmo is open and ready for the 9/11 trials.

look dumabss it's very simple.. it's called logic.. you opened your stupid mouth and posted on this baord that most Americans (based on polling data) were against the healthcare Bill... you based your opinion on the same polls..

Now you still complain about Obama even when polls (yes the one's you bashed him with) are in his favor.. so which is it moron?

You use polls when it's convenient and ignore them when they are not... which is the definition of a hypocrite..

you can try and caveat your way out of this but your logic is flawed which ,by now, is well known on this board..

ignored the facts? Polls are facts now? Jesus what's next...

gayass talking points? You stupid fuck no president should base any decision on polling data regardless of the issue.. but regarding the healthcare Bill.. gay jack wants obama to listen to the polls..

jack sommerset

04-04-2011, 04:58 PM

look dumabss it's very simple.. it's called logic.. you opened your stupid mouth and posted on this baord that most Americans (based on polling data) were against the healthcare Bill... you based your opinion on the same polls..

Now you still complain about Obama even when polls (yes the one's you bashed him with) are in his favor.. so which is it moron?

You use polls when it's convenient and ignore them when they are not... which is the definition of a hypocrite..

you can try and caveat your way out of this but your logic is flawed which ,by now, is well known on this board..

ignored the facts? Polls are facts now? Jesus what's next...

gayass talking points? You stupid fuck no president should base any decision on polling data regardless of the issue.. but regarding the healthcare Bill.. gay jack wants obama to listen to the polls..

LOL@your logic. You're a idiot. Prove me one time, just one little time fantasy boy that I bashed barry based on a poll in his favor. Bet you can't. There is so much stupidity you spewed here I can't continue this. Just give me one little tiny example.

Halberto

04-04-2011, 05:53 PM

Yoni you're so critical on left-wing politicians/policies, but do you really believe the right wing is that much better? They're all the same. Same walk, different talk.

boutons_deux

04-04-2011, 07:06 PM

jack sommerset

04-04-2011, 07:19 PM

Holder was very clear that the Legislative branch (Repugs) put so many (unconstitutional) restrictions on the Exec branch's prerogative to prosecute in any trial in criminal court that it was impossibly expensive and take many more years.

He forgot to mention they, congress, repugs and democunts passed these restrictions you speak of. He also forgot to mention as you have that congress was under democunts control.

ChumpDumper

04-05-2011, 03:55 AM

So Democrats were also cowards along with Republicans and you, WC.

Understood.

Winehole23

04-05-2011, 01:17 PM

Say what you want about how Congress forced Obama's hand today (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/a-hamstrung-eric-holder-blasts-critics-of-civilian-trials/236672/) by making it all but impossible to try the 9/11 conspirators in regular Article III courts.* (http://www.slate.com/id/2290359/#correction) The only lesson learned is that Obama's hand can be forced. That there is no principle he can't be bullied into abandoning. In the future, when seeking to pass laws that treat different people differently for purely political reasons, Congress need only fear-monger and fabricate to get the president to cave. Nobody claims that this was a legal decision. It was a political triumph or loss, depending on your viewpoint. The rule of law is an afterthought, either way.

It may not matter to you today that the U.S. government has invented a new class of criminals fit for a new class of trials. It may bother you a lot more when special rules are created for unions, or corporations, or the poor, or the children of illegal immigrants, or eco-terrorists. Today's capitulation will just embolden Congress to do all that and more.

A year ago, Holder told the New Yorker's Jane Mayer that the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would serve as "the defining event of my time as attorney general." Sadly, he's probably right. He will be remembered for having sacrificed what he knew to be right for some payoff to be named later. We will, all of us, in the long run bear the costs of that choice.
http://www.slate.com/id/2290359/

jack sommerset

04-05-2011, 01:35 PM

KSM admitted he did it. The dog and pony show the Obongos wanted to put on was exactly that plus it would cost us hundred of millions of dollars. The military will see that the terrorist are punished for all the crimes they committed against our citizens. Barry did good. 10 years of this nonsense but we now can see the finish line in the not to far distance.

ChumpDumper

04-05-2011, 01:44 PM

So that's your only objection to a federal court trial?

Winehole23

04-05-2011, 01:46 PM

The ends justify the means

George Gervin's Afro

04-05-2011, 01:47 PM

jack sommerset

04-05-2011, 01:48 PM

so putting someone on trial is a dog and pony excercise... got it dummy.

I'm still waiting for your tiny little example, dummy.

George Gervin's Afro

04-05-2011, 01:50 PM

I'm still waiting for your tiny little example, dummy.

I'm still waiting on the 'tons' of polls that show the American people support Walker..

jack sommerset

04-05-2011, 01:54 PM

I'm still waiting on the 'tons' of polls that show the American people support Walker..

I gave you one and told you about this new thing called "google."

What did you do? *crickets*

George Gervin's Afro

04-05-2011, 01:57 PM

I gave you one and told you about this new thing called "google."

What did you do? *crickets*

don't worry jackie..you will criticise obama soon and I will bring out the polls that support him on the same issue just to prove what an idiot you are.. it is a guarantee that you will do it.. it's not a mattr of if rather it's just a matter of when. My guess is it will be by the end of thw eek..

ChumpDumper

04-05-2011, 02:01 PM

Still trying to figure out what the legal objection to this trial is.

As far as I can tell, it just a bunch of people like the posters here espousing emotional arguments like so many stereotypical women.

jack sommerset

04-05-2011, 02:01 PM

So u admit you are full of shit. Thanks.

jack sommerset

04-05-2011, 02:08 PM

George Gervin's Afro

04-05-2011, 02:11 PM

I gave you one and told you about this new thing called "google."

What did you do? *crickets*

so you are admitting you're full of shit

'tons'..lol

ChumpDumper

04-05-2011, 02:13 PM

They are going on trial. You're just whining now.What is your legal objection to a federal court trial?

Besides openly weeping?

jack sommerset

04-05-2011, 02:13 PM

What is your legal objection to a federal court trial?

Besides openly weeping?

:lmao

ChumpDumper

04-05-2011, 02:15 PM

:cry

jack sommerset

04-05-2011, 02:15 PM

so you are admitting you're full of shit

'tons'..lol

Back to this. Google them, dumbass. They are there, I am provided you with one to start you off. Go get em'

George Gervin's Afro

04-05-2011, 02:19 PM

Back to this. Google them, dumbass. They are there, I am provided you with one to start you off. Go get em'

:lmao

tons..:lmao

jack sommerset

04-05-2011, 03:36 PM

:lmao

I'm a giggling idiot..:lmao

jack sommerset

04-05-2011, 03:39 PM

Wait a second.....George, you don't know what tons means. I goggled it for you.

tons - definition of tons by the Free Online Dictionary ...
tons [ˈtʌnz] Informal. pl n. a large amount or number: tons of money I have tons of shoes. adv (intensifier) I looked and felt tons better.

jack sommerset

04-05-2011, 03:40 PM

jack sommerset

04-05-2011, 03:45 PM

Son of a bitch....Here's another one

Wisconsin Poll Shows 71% Approval For Governor Walker’s Budget Changes.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/wisconsin-poll-shows-71-approval-for-governor-walkers-budget-changes/

jack sommerset

04-05-2011, 03:46 PM

I'll be damned. Here's another one. Rasmussen no less.

48% Back GOP Governor in Wisconsin Spat, 38% Side With Unions

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2011/48_back_gop_governor_in_wisconsin_spat_38_side_wit h_unions

Spurminator

04-05-2011, 03:51 PM

Public trials are only important if a celebrity is involved.

George Gervin's Afro

04-05-2011, 04:26 PM

I goggled another one for you. That's two. You give it a try. Took a few seconds.

Poll: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Winning Labor, Budget Fight

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/02/25/poll-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-winning-labor-budget-fight

For the moment, however, the core issue of the fight that has paralyzed the state government and led to protesters occupying the state capitol building--the idea that the power of public employee unions to engage in collective bargaining be limited to wage and benefit issues--Wisconsin voters break with the governor, 54 percent to 41 percent. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

That, Morris said in a release, means that while “Voters back the principal of collective bargaining,” the survey indicates they might be willing to back Walker’s proposed changes if it would ensure “they would not impede education reforms.” Meaning that if Walker can frame the debate as one that gives school more flexibility, makes it easier to get rid of bad teachers and retain good ones and pay teachers based on merit, the numbers flip, with likely voters backing Walker’s position 58 percent to 38 percent. [Take the U.S. News poll: Are Wisconsin teachers unfair to skip school for protests?]

whoops..from your own article...:lmao

you might be the dumbest person that I have ever come across on the internets..

you should try and read the entire article you stupid a$$..

also notice you idiot it is done by a right wing group...