Foxy Lady: ROFL..........

Foxy Lady: I've never owned a gun but I saw a bumber sticker I really liked (ok, I do own a pellet gun and I shoot at the racoons butts when they come in my back yard). Wanna hear what the bumper sticker said?

Seriously I wonder how many president we would go through in a year if the commander in chief had to lead the armed forces in battle at the front of the lines as they do in tv movies with the leader leading the charge...think about that he has the power to send our men and women over to war and to kill and get killed BUT he is never there leading the charges

Artful Dodger: the bumper sticker said...if they outlaw guns then i will be an outlaw and they will have to pry the gun from my cold hands

BadBoy7: I don't know. Usually the guys making the decisions are out of the way of the bullets. But I suspect there would be plenty of men willing to lead the charge. But in reality, it would be irresponsible for any leader to put themselves in harms way since killing them could lose the war for their side (or at least seriously jeopardize things)

Bernice: What cha chewin?

BadBoy7: No, it was to do with "gun control" :)

Artful Dodger: Sure why not.

Foxy Lady: GUN CONTROL: "A steady grip and hit your target on the first shot"

Ok, not exactly that but close :)

Artful Dodger:

Foxy Lady: ma cud.............

Foxy Lady:  And when the gun is on lock, use  then resort to   and if you're still losing, go 

Bernice:

Artful Dodger: uh uh i use the

Has anyone read Atlas Shrugged?

Artful Dodger:

Foxy Lady:Have you heard of it?

Artful Dodger: I tried to read it but it wouldn't load for me, but if that is what it is he should be ashamed of himself.....

Commentary: Obama breaks his own rule

Will this become a problem for the Obama administration?

CNN Commentary

Artful Dodger: give him time, he is still learning :)

Bernice:I knew it.  On the job training! 

Artful Dodger:Bush had it...we call it 911

Bwild:Good point.  He handled it well in the beginning too. 

Impeached Gov. Blagojevich, on the first leg of his media blitz timed to the start of his impeachment trial, in an NBC interview broadcast on The Today Show Sunday compared himself to human rights heros Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.
...
As he was taken from his home by federal agents on Dec. 9, Blagojevich told NBC, "I thought about Mandela, Dr. King and Gandhi and tried to put some perspective to all this and that is what I am doing now."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/25/blagojevich-compares-hims_n_160666.html

The facts tell a different story than the left wing spin.  It's a legitimate war and was fully supported by congress after full disclosure.  The fact of the matter is that congress had all the intelligence it needed to make intelligent decisions with respect to Iraq and any possible invasion.  The following if from a speech President Bush gave.  The link will appear at the bottom and contains the entire speech.




While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/bush200511111418.asp

Artful Dodger: Even Though BBW won't respond, the idea that Bush lied is a radical left propaganda ploy

It never ceases to amaze me how people can GIVE criticism but can't TAKE it.............

Bernice:  politics is infamous for that sort of thing  :) lol

Artful Dodger: sometimes I wish I knew more about your political situation, cause I would love to get INTO it with ya HAHAHAHAHA......

Bernice: Far too often people speak out of ideology, ignorance, or emotion.  In America (as in many countries) a person is granted a fair trial before they are convicted of a crime.  All facts are considered, and testimony is heard.  Political discussions should follow this model.  Opinions are for flavors of ice cream, but history should be about facts.  It's probably my biggest beef with some of the liberals I have run into.  Something is either true, or not true.  Some things are not a matter of opinion.  And if a claim is made, the facts must bear it out.  Otherwise the claim should be rejected.  If I'm falsely accused of something, I don't want my accusers hiding behind the "it's my opinion" excuse.   I would think that most people see it this way.  ;)

Artful Dodger: In America a person is granted a fair trial before they are convicted of a crime.

I'm sure Guantánamo detainees would agree with that. :)

Pedro Martínez: I agree with you ROFL........

Pedro Martínez:61 of those released went back into terrorism.  I doubt Obama will release any of them without some sort of hearing.  I personally don't think they deserve a civic hearing but would agree that in some cases a military hearing would be appropriate.  As far as I'm concerned, if they were captured in a military operation/conflict, they are military combatants and should be treated as such.  I don't think there are a bunch of innocent men sitting in Gitmo.  And I also don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial.  With all due respect, it's not the same thing as being falsely accused of an illegal act by someone.  There are very specifc reasons these guys were detained in the first place.  And the fact that many of those previously released have gone back into terrorism and participated in the killing of innocent people should give us all pause before we release any more.  Of course I could be missing some important point here and maybe should rethink my position.  But at the moment, I can't think of any reason to alter my view. 

Bernice:

Artful Dodger

1. In America a person is granted a fair trial before they are convicted of a crime.
2. I don't think there are a bunch of innocent men sitting in Gitmo. And I also don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial.

Putting 1 and 2 together, you don't regard Guantánamo detainees as "persons". :)

Artful Dodger: ..I.. (the finger) HAHAHAHAH

Pedro Martínez: #1 should say in America, American citizens are granted a fir trial before they are convicted of a crime
#2 should be They don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial in an American court

a query??


are they classed as prisoners of war? and if so why arent they treated as such.

Vikings: So American citizens ARE granted a fair trial, while citizens of other coutries ARE NOT given the right to a fair trial? Hmm... I don't remember the US of A withdrawing from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose Article 10 says Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Pedro Martínez: they are not because they are enemy combatants and as such fall under military justice

Vikings: Can you back your statement with any provision of law?

Maybe Article 9 of the below mentioned Declaration would help: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. This applies to military combatants as well.

Pedro Martínez: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blpresidentorder.htm

Pedro Martínez: The guys at Gitmo aren't sitting there for a crime like a civil crime.  They are enemy combatants and were captured on the battlefield.  I think their situations fall under a different classification and it isn't a matter of guilty or innocent (as in a civil crime) but more a matter of being captured on a military battlefield and in that case they are detained prisoners. 

Vikings:#1 should say in America, American citizens are granted a fir trial before they are convicted of a crime
#2 should be They don't agree that they all are deserving of a trial in an American court

yeah, that's better put

***Sec. 3. Detention Authority of the Secretary of Defense. Any individual subject to this order shall be --

(a) detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of Defense outside or within the United States;

(b) treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria;

(c) afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment;

(d) allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements of such detention; and

(e) detained in accordance with such other conditions as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.***



this link and affidavit is relevant to the above, I think anyway.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/David-Hicks-affidavit/2004/12/10/1102625527396.html

Vikings: Oh, yes, this Presidential Order. I forgot that rule of law has already vanished from the United States. Presidential orders have a higher legal force and can overrule international treaties adopted by the US and UN resolutions.

Artful Dodger: Their situations fall under a different classification. You have deprived them of their prisoner-of-war status, so no, their situation does not fall under a different classification. There is a prisoner of war and a "regular" prisoner. Nothing in between and nothing else.

Pedro Martínez: Were captured solders meant to be included into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with respect to individual trials) or isn't it more aimed at decent human treatment such as adequate food, water, shelter and humane treatment?