varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,
Nope.
Quote:
So nothing new to say?
Nope.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama flip flops on 911 trials
Obama flip flops on 911 trialsFollow
Business as usual it would seem. How many times are you going to try recycling the same talking points?
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,
Nope. Of course when we're talking about the Left nothing is ever 'new'. They're f*cking over the citizens the same as the Right.
Quote:
So nothing new to say?
Nope. Of course when we're talking about the Left nothing is ever 'new'. They're f*cking over the citizens the same as the Right.
You were so close!
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Man, no one even remembers the war, or soldiers dying or dudes getting tortured or whatever.
The elephants are totally killing Medicare. MEDICARE! Your grandparents are screwed. Depending on your age you and/or your parents are screwed. Game over, man.
The elephants are totally killing Medicare. MEDICARE! Your grandparents are screwed. Depending on your age you and/or your parents are screwed. Game over, man.
Jophiel wrote:
He ordered the closing and attempted to buy a prison to keep the people currently in Gitmo. He was blocked by Congress from purchasing the prison or from using any money in the budget to transfer prisoners (which is why we're having a tribunal for this guy). I'm not sure what you think he can do about it.
To be fair it was the Democrat controlled congress that blocked him.
MoebiusLord wrote:
To be fair it was the Democrat controlled congress that blocked him.
Yup. The majority of it was GOP opposition but, had the entire Democratic caucus wanted it done, it could have happened.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I'm currently in a state of pretending Obama isn't such a wet tissue. I had high hopes for him. :(
Whatevs, I voted for Hillary in the primary.
Whatevs, I voted for Hillary in the primary.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiogog? Really? idig was too hard? And where did you get ogog from in the first place?
And, if given the choice to vote again, I still would go for Obama. Just because he sucks doesn't mean the alternative would have been better. I just hope Palin runs in 2012--guaranteed Democrat victory.
And, if given the choice to vote again, I still would go for Obama. Just because he sucks doesn't mean the alternative would have been better. I just hope Palin runs in 2012--guaranteed Democrat victory.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
She won't. I'm surprised because I thought she'd give it the token effort but it's looking more and more like she'd rather take the hits for sitting it out than suffer the humiliation of bombing out in the primaries. Her favorables are something like 30% vs 60% against. Any time she spends on a failed campaign is time she won't be cashing an easy paycheck from Fox News.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
She won't. I'm surprised because I thought she'd give it the token effort but it's looking more and more like she'd rather take the hits for sitting it out than suffer the humiliation of bombing out in the primaries. Her favorables are something like 30% vs 60% against. Any time she spends on a failed campaign is time she won't be cashing an easy paycheck from Fox News.
The skeptic in me thinks that she was never actually planning on running, but figured that the attention and speculation on the possibility of it made for better viewership & profits. The behavior just didn't add up to me.
I doubt she's interested in getting the job (she thought governor of Alaska was too hard), I just assumed she'd run to keep her name relevant and then bow out after a couple primaries, blaming the "lamestream media" for forcing her to chose protecting her family over running or something.
But that's only a smart plan if you're going to place well in the opening salvo of primaries.
Edited, Apr 5th 2011 3:12pm by Jophiel
But that's only a smart plan if you're going to place well in the opening salvo of primaries.
Edited, Apr 5th 2011 3:12pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38gbaji,
Posted: Apr 05 2011 at 6:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I think the point is that he promised something that he could not deliver. Some of us said that he could not deliver on that promise when he made it so it was dishonest to promise it in the first place, but some others on this forum insisted that he could deliver and thus was being completely honest.
Quote:
Some of us said that he could not deliver on that promise when he made it so it was dishonest to promise it
Some of us, who?
I'll donate $20 to the RNC right now and take a screen shot of the confirmation if you find me a post made by you prior to the Nov. 2008 election in which you say that Obama will be unable to close Guantanamo. Not that he shouldn't or that it'd be a mistake but that he's lying because he won't be able to do so.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Some of us said that he could not deliver on that promise when he made it so it was dishonest to promise it
Some of us, who?
I'll donate $20 to the RNC right now and take a screen shot of the confirmation if you find me a post made by you prior to the Nov. 2008 election in which you say that Obama will be unable to close Guantanamo.
Why prior to the election? Find me a thread in which that promise was discussed prior to the election, and maybe we'll talk. I have consistently held to the position that Obama would be unable to close gitmo (with a fairly long set of reasons as to why). When the discussion happened to come up is kinda irrelevant, isn't it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Why prior to the election?
You previously wrote:
Some of us said that he could not deliver on that promise when he made it so it was dishonest to promise it
Unless you're living in a world where Obama didn't say he'd close Gitmo prior to the election...
Quote:
Find me a thread
No, you claimed that you said this when he made the promise so that's on you. I think you're full of bullshit and am certain enough to back it up with something. I expect you'll hem and haw and hedge and never present such a thing.
I'm no idiot. This forum does have a search function.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
paulsol wrote:
Debalic wrote:
We invaded Pakistan?
Apparently 'invasion' is not the same as 'military action' (Thanks Gbaji) but a hell of a lot of hardware with 'Made in USA' has been falling from the skies and dismembering Pakistanis, young and old, in Pakistan since Obama became Prez.
Not to worry, there are experienced diplomats such as Raymond Clark over there to smooth out these contretemps.
Donbayne 100 Rng - Uinian 100 Dru - Breru 100 Sk - Nyenie 82 Brd - Ruusan 76 Clr - Braru 75 Mag - Syqen 100 Shm EQ Stromm/Luclin
gbaji wrote:
I think the point is that he promised something that he could not deliver.
All candidates do this, partly because they want to tell us what they think we want to hear, and partly because they cannot know what is and is not possible until they're elected.
Everyone who isn't a complete idiot understands this.
For the record, I also didn't believe that Bush Sr. would be able to avoid new taxes. Whether he believed it or not is debatable.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
All candidates do this
How's Social Security reform working out for Bush?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why prior to the election?
You previously wrote:
Some of us said that he could not deliver on that promise when he made it so it was dishonest to promise it
Unless you're living in a world where Obama didn't say he'd close Gitmo prior to the election...
Quote:
Find me a thread
No, you claimed that you said this when he made the promise so that's on you.
The universe does not revolve around this forum Joph. I also don't tend to initiate topics, but respond to them. So the fact that a conversation about the likelihood of Obama being able to follow through on his promise didn't occur on this forum until after the election doesn't really change anything.
And is this really the point you want to cling to? Really!? Please tell me you can see how desperate that looks? "Well, I can't actually dispute that Obama promised something he couldn't deliver. And I can't dispute that he did in fact fail to deliver. But you claimed that you said this would happen when he said it and you didn't say that until some time later, so I win!!!".
Way to set your bar so low there Joph.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
And is this really the point you want to cling to? Really!? Please tell me you can see how desperate that looks? "Well, I can't actually dispute that Obama promised something he couldn't deliver. And I can't dispute that he did in fact fail to deliver. But you claimed that you said this would happen when he said it and you didn't say that until some time later, so I win!!!".
It appears desperate to you because, as a partisan hack, you feel the instinctive, knee-jerk need to defend your party's candidates to the death, regardless of what logic or reality would dictate to you. Joph, on the other hand, has repeatedly shown the ability to acknowledge when Democratic candidates fail to deliver, hence why he's not trying to claim that Obama didn't promise this. In your ridiculously divided mind, however, he ought to be trying to defend every last statement or action by Obama, so when he fails to defend something, it's a sign that he's just trying to distract you from the truth, when in reality he knows that it's indefensible.
gbaji wrote:
Way to set your bar so low there Joph.
Be easier to admit that you never said it and are just making it up now to pat yourself on the back. But, yeah, I'm totally shamed for pointing it out. Good job.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Way to set your bar so low there Joph.
Be easier to admit that you never said it and are just making it up now to pat yourself on the back.
I did say it. That I may not have said it on this forum prior to him being elected doesn't change anything. Are you trying to argue that my position on the issue of Gitmo changed between mid 2008 and mid 2009?
This has got to be about the weakest argument I've seen you put forth on this forum Joph.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
But just since you asked. Here's a relevant thread from 2007. I don't specifically mention Obama, but I do speak about the extreme difficulty with attempting to try unlawful combatants in civilian criminal courts:
So... Your argument assumes that I believed (and stated clearly) that it was nearly impossible to try gitmo detainees in civilian courts and should not be attempted over a year before Obama won the nomination, then apparently changed my mind and thought that he could succeed at this when he promised to do exactly that during his campaign, then I changed my mind again and argued that it couldn't be done in the months after he won the election.
Or maybe we'll apply that whole Occam's Razor thing and assume that I held this opinion about the infeasibility of trying gitmo detainees in civilian courts the whole time, but the subject just never specifically came up with regard to Obama's promise during the election itself. Yeah. I'm going to go with that.
Edited, Apr 6th 2011 1:58pm by gbaji
Quote:
The terrorists use the methods they use *because* we treat them as criminals instead of illegal soldiers. That's the point. You can say that it works just fine to simply charge them with crimes, but the fact is that it doesn't. Because the criminal justice system simply is not equipped to deal with people with the sorts of motives that terrorists have, and trying to apply them only makes the terrorists more willing to prefor atrocities in the futherance of their cause.
Quote:
It's virtually impossible to successfully charge these guys with a crime. The US government is simply not going to hand over evidence for open cross examination and discovery when that evidence is almost exclusively top-secret.
So... Your argument assumes that I believed (and stated clearly) that it was nearly impossible to try gitmo detainees in civilian courts and should not be attempted over a year before Obama won the nomination, then apparently changed my mind and thought that he could succeed at this when he promised to do exactly that during his campaign, then I changed my mind again and argued that it couldn't be done in the months after he won the election.
Or maybe we'll apply that whole Occam's Razor thing and assume that I held this opinion about the infeasibility of trying gitmo detainees in civilian courts the whole time, but the subject just never specifically came up with regard to Obama's promise during the election itself. Yeah. I'm going to go with that.
Edited, Apr 6th 2011 1:58pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I don't specifically mention Obama
Thanks. The question wasn't "Was Gbaji opposed to closing Gitmo?" since that's obvious. The question was "Was Gbaji being truthful when he crowed to us all that he called, at the time of his campaign promise, that Obama would fail to close Gitmo thus setting Gbaji up as a master political soothsayer and Obama as a liar?"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 259
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (259)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama flip flops on 911 trials
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC