Out of Touch

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Out of Touch
175
Mon, 11-24-2008 - 3:30pm

Just got this from one of my GOP friends - wanted to know if I wanted this bumpersticker - reminds me of the old Hall and Oates song...


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-22-2008
In reply to: bwahahaha1
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 12:25am

"How many retired people do you know who think Social Security has failed to deliver as promised?"


How many people that will retire in the next 20 years think it will deliver as promise.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
In reply to: bwahahaha1
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 12:34am

Kind of funny the "unlawful" terminology considering the number of Constitutional laws which BushCo has sought to subvert or bypass. Also worth noting--the U.S. was quite willing to back mujahadeen, at least with money and equipment, when the adversary was the USSR. Were they "unlawful" then, and if so, who should be tried for abetting them?

The whole problem with "unlawful combatants" as a concept is the circular logic which self-references. How do we know that those being held were combatants at all? They didn't have uniforms or carry arms openly. But, by gosh and by golly, that's also part of the "unlawful combatant" definition, so they must be combatants who are unlawful! And "unlawful combatants" are denied the right to make their case in an open and fair fashion by BushCo. Morally and logically despicable. The stuff of tyrant, despots, and governments who rule by fear (See: North Korea).

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
In reply to: bwahahaha1
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 1:03am

Set aside the talk of tinfoil hats, Koolaid, whatever. It's jejune.

You make the case against yourself. Evidence has been destroyed. Lawyers for defendants are dealing with sites and people from years ago and far away. Therein lies the peril of ever having set up Guantanamo in the first place. Here's the burning question. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?! Or is this another one of those John Yoo situations where he was, as an appointee of the executive, making policy and interpreting law to most benefit the executive branch? He was instrumental in many of the less savory DOJ pronouncements.

If the reasoning is that detainees cannot be tried in a civil court because they were citizens of other countries with whom we are not at war, captured on foreign soil, then we don't have the right to hold them militarily either--must extradite where we have previous agreements to do so. Holding them indefinitely in limbo is not an option.

You're really stretching to include OJ Simpson in the category of terrorist. By that "logic", our prisons are already full of terrorists who have been tried in civil (as opposed to military) courts. People with a political agenda set OJ free?! My, what an interesting spin. Miscarriages of justice do NOT equate with acts of terror unless you're arguing that Nicole Simpson's and Ronald Goldman's murders were on the same par with the attacks of 9/11 or even the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I very much doubt that the rest of the country would support that premise!

This business at Guantanamo is messy, no two ways about it. If enmity and religious fervor didn't exist previously in detainees, it probably does now! Bush grabbed a rattler and can't let go, but we can't hold on indefinitely either. His legacy will trouble the nation for years, probably even decades, to come. And somehow, some way, there must be a more visibly just attempt to resolve the matter of detainees, rather than insisting that status quo was either fair or sustainable--it is neither.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
In reply to: bwahahaha1
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 1:37am
People have stated that Social Security is a failure.

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-22-2008
In reply to: bwahahaha1
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 3:35am

"People have stated that Social Security is a failure.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2008
In reply to: bwahahaha1
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 5:55am

<>


So this is all at the whim of Bush?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2008
In reply to: bwahahaha1
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 5:59am

<>


In another freak twist of the law, Bush will never be tried for kidnapping and holding captive all of these men for years.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2008
In reply to: bwahahaha1
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 6:02am

<>


Um, yes, these men are finally being given due process and an opportunity to be heard.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2008
In reply to: bwahahaha1
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 6:11am

<>


Do you have any support for any of that?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-25-2008
In reply to: bwahahaha1
Mon, 12-01-2008 - 7:33am

just focus on those points noted in the Geneva Convention Article 4...


The US didn't set those rules in some sort of circular logic.

Pages