Daily Liberal FAIL Thread

[Bluesman]

My last full on California experience was 3 summers ago. I had to work in the Sacramento area and surrounding burbs for a few months. I never had to deal with so many clueless people on a mission in my entire life. I damned near lost my sanity. The Disney trip last spring brought back to many bad memories. California is now dead to me as I am not ever going back. It is just not worth it.

The citizenry is clueless, most of 'em. They seem to not have made the connection between their one-party hive-mind voting pattern and the complete mis-rule that results. I think they must believe that just one more government program, just one more tax hike, and they'll return California to the shangri-la that it once was.

But of course, they continue to govern like liberals, and they continue to poison the Garden of Eden. It's so bad now that California's credit rating is dead last; Number Fifty among the states. Highest taxation rate, too, but of course nobody has seemed to make any correlation of those two facts.

It's not even so bad yet that they don't consider even MORE madness. If I had more time, I could list some of the items the legislature is considering, and you'd think I was kidding. But I wouldn't be. It's just not funny anymore. And it's going to be truly tragic before the final act plays out, because as bad as it is, the Democrats in control seem not to have any idea their Ship of State has hit a reef and is on fire from stem to stern.

The mega-state, with every advantage of location, climate, resources, wealth, infrastructure, education and sheer POWER that would be the envy of any nation on Earth, and they've brought themselves to the brink of complete ruin and collapse. 'Too big to fail' may have saved a company or two this year, but the country is out of ammo now, and there's no way to save the country's dynamo, the power plant for the rest of America. California is a main beam running through the length of United States economic power, and if it shatters, it isn't just Californians that will suffer. They're going to take us all with 'em, because they've had a really awesome party for the past 30 years.

When the curtain comes down, the shock will be as nothing else the country has seen since Reconstruction.

[Bluesman]

It does not matter where we caught them- we brought them here to US controlled soil.

German soldiers captured in Italy, Italian soldiers captured in Africa, and Japanese soldiers captured in Borneo all came to the US, and it's a new one on me that they were entitled to trials.

I am equally fine with having field tribunals and shooting them out of hand. But once they are brought here for justice the constitution kicks in.

Not for them, it doesn't, and where did you get the notion that they were brought here for 'justice'? They weren't; they were brought here to be detained.

Even the Nazi leadership got judged by the rule of law.

After a fashion, and CERTAINLY not according to US law, as US citizens are entitled to.

The problem is using a place that flies the US flag, and has flown it for over a century to try and circumvent the constitution.

The Constitution does NOT apply here, any more than it ever has for any enemy of the United States. They're not merely criminals, old boy; they're combatants, and illegal ones, at that. So stop it with all the crazy maunderings about upholding US law, because there is nothing but defeat in a war of survival down that road, and your faithfulness to the Consititution notwithstanding, it'll see us defeated and destroyed, should we take the really insane point-of-view that our values somehow demand that we do what we have NEVER done: grant a war criminal the rights and protections of US citizens.

There is absolutely nothing at Gitmo we could not have done (imprisonment wise) here in the US.

Actually, there is. And there you go again, with a complete and totally insane attempt to try to make these guys out to be like tax cheats or child molesters. They may be all that and worse, but the point is, they ARE NOT CRIMINALS in the sense that we're trying to imprison them. We're trying to DEFEAT them, you know, in a fukkin' WAR, and I cannot believe you are too dumb to see that.

A federal Supermax for life or a humane strapping down and lethal injection. Just follow the rule of law, but we didn't.

Yeah; we did, and scrupulously so. It just doesn't accord with your crazy notion that these guys should BE in SuperMax, and not in a POW laager of anything we want it to be that's one tic north of what's required by international law for - not criminals - but POWs.

We became our enemy and resorted to extra-judical holding, torture and barbarity.

Who's this 'we'? You're being of absolutely no help at all, so don't think this prostration and public garment-rending allows you to take any credit for what's been done to date to try to save the world from this scourge. You want to pillory your own side (you're on 'our' side, right?) for measures that have NO shame attached, while granting rights that are most certainly not due to the very worst human effluvia on the entire planet, and then you say 'we'? Nah; stand over there with the other ones that are impeding the progress that, whether you know it or not, your life depends on. You're not with 'us', from the way I read you.

Ignore me if you want, but I think America has more to lose from ignoring the Constitution than it risks by granting those in our custody protections so that they get a fair trial.

The Constitution has NOT been ignored, and if you can find in it anything that says these animals are protected by it while they're trying their damnedest to destroy it through criminally-waged war, then you really are, as I contend, insane, and I need pay you no more mind. They're not entitled to any trial except for what suits us to prosecute them for war crimes. That's what we've done, and it's a helluva lot more than any other non-suicidal country would have ever done for their benefit.

Look at all the detainees released, some have gone back to terror- kill them. But most have not and served between 5-7 years. They could just as easily done that time in a prison.

Except that it would be extremely stupid to allow enemies - not criminals, as you seem to style them - ENEMIES to have access to other prisoners, lawyers, aid workers, co-religionists, and without any sort of a doubt, COMRADES. To continue the jihad. From inside the United States.

You are so incredibly ill-equipped to understand what you're advocating. You have no idea how it would damage the US in time of war, and I'm going to be charitable and just think that you're extremely ignorant of what your course of action would lead to, because the alternative is that you're one of the left-wing idiots that actually collaborate to destroy the ability to successfully prosecute the war.

Now, I know I haven't changed your mind, and I don't think that's ever really possible through exchanges on message baords. You have ego invested in being right, so in your own mind, you're always going to think that you made good points. You don't. You're just incapable of seeing what it is that you want to happen would result in greater evil.

There is absolutely zero reason for Gitmo to exist.

Of course there is. It's to hold terrorists and to serve as an interrogation facility. It's been fantastically successful at both. There's no reason to CLOSE Gitmo.

[zraver]

German soldiers captured in Italy, Italian soldiers captured in Africa, and Japanese soldiers captured in Borneo all came to the US, and it's a new one on me that they were entitled to trials.

They were given POW status. Do you know why so many German/Italian POWs ended up in Texas? The Geneva Convention requires POWs to be held in a simialr climate- what do Gitmo and Afghanistan or Iraq have in common?

Not for them, it doesn't, and where did you get the notion that they were brought here for 'justice'? They weren't; they were brought here to be detained.

We are not hunting them to detain them, but to seek justice for the terror attacks.

After a fashion, and CERTAINLY not according to US law, as US citizens are entitled to.

it was still the rule of law

The Constitution does NOT apply here, any more than it ever has for any enemy of the United States. They're not merely criminals, old boy; they're combatants, and illegal ones, at that. So stop it with all the crazy maunderings about upholding US law, because there is nothing but defeat in a war of survival down that road, and your faithfulness to the Consititution notwithstanding, it'll see us defeated and destroyed, should we take the really insane point-of-view that our values somehow demand that we do what we have NEVER done: grant a war criminal the rights and protections of US citizens.

"In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the constitutional rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances."

If you are held by the US government, the Constitution applies because it is an instrument to restrain the action of the government.

Actually, there is. And there you go again, with a complete and totally insane attempt to try to make these guys out to be like tax cheats or child molesters. They may be all that and worse, but the point is, they ARE NOT CRIMINALS in the sense that we're trying to imprison them. We're trying to DEFEAT them, you know, in a fukkin' WAR, and I cannot believe you are too dumb to see that.

There are two wars in fact. The first against terror. The second is the perpetual war to safeguard our rights. The second trumps the first.

Yeah; we did, and scrupulously so. It just doesn't accord with your crazy notion that these guys should BE in SuperMax, and not in a POW laager of anything we want it to be that's one tic north of what's required by international law for - not criminals - but POWs.

The US has not followed international law at Gitmo, nor has it followed Us law. If it has followed any law at all I would like to know.

Who's this 'we'?

America

You're being of absolutely no help at all, so don't think this prostration and public garment-rending allows you to take any credit for what's been done to date to try to save the world from this scourge. You want to pillory your own side (you're on 'our' side, right?) for measures that have NO shame attached, while granting rights that are most certainly not due to the very worst human effluvia on the entire planet, and then you say 'we'? Nah; stand over there with the other ones that are impeding the progress that, whether you know it or not, your life depends on. You're not with 'us', from the way I read you.

I stand up for the Constitution and the American way of life, and suddenly I am against your "us"? The Supreme Court empowered to decide where and when the Constitution applies has already said it applies to Gitmo. Defending the Constitution defends us.

The Constitution has NOT been ignored, and if you can find in it anything that says these animals are protected by it while they're trying their damnedest to destroy it through criminally-waged war, then you really are, as I contend, insane, and I need pay you no more mind. They're not entitled to any trial except for what suits us to prosecute them for war crimes. That's what we've done, and it's a helluva lot more than any other non-suicidal country would have ever done for their benefit.

So the Supreme Court is insane?

Except that it would be extremely stupid to allow enemies - not criminals, as you seem to style them - ENEMIES to have access to other prisoners, lawyers, aid workers, co-religionists, and without any sort of a doubt, COMRADES. To continue the jihad. From inside the United States.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has a lot of practice in making sure such would not happen. They already hold several major terrorists, guess what no internal jihad yet.

You are so incredibly ill-equipped to understand what you're advocating. You have no idea how it would damage the US in time of war, and I'm going to be charitable and just think that you're extremely ignorant of what your course of action would lead to, because the alternative is that you're one of the left-wing idiots that actually collaborate to destroy the ability to successfully prosecute the war.

it would not affect the prosecution of the war one iota, I am talking about prisoners those who are already out of the fight. Unless of course your advocating torture?

Now, I know I haven't changed your mind, and I don't think that's ever really possible through exchanges on message baords. You have ego invested in being right, so in your own mind, you're always going to think that you made good points. You don't. You're just incapable of seeing what it is that you want to happen would result in greater evil.

The course Bush was on resulted in the greater evil.

Of course there is. It's to hold terrorists and to serve as an interrogation facility. It's been fantastically successful at both. There's no reason to CLOSE Gitmo.

It does nothing a prison cannot do except allow torture.

[Bluesman]

I hope the Lawyer Corps is as effective as you imagine them to be in defending us. Frankly, I put zero faith in that course. You just have no real idea what this will lead to. It's already happening, and we've already suffered becaus of it, and it'll be fatal to some of our citizens, maybe all of us in the fullness of time.

And as for you, I think you're not a person of ill-will, but there is no question but that you're titanically ignorant of the fallout from your course of action, because you refuse to see where it will lead. There are a thousand ways that this will undermine us; a thousand more that will aid the enemy. And I hope your sense of personal legal hygeine is worth the blood that will inevitably be spilled because of it. It need not be, and there's simply no chance that we'll end up being fascists or whatever because we refused to manacle ourselves in wartime in a futile pursuit of war waged nicely.

The Law of Unintended Consequences never has so much force as during time of war. Each of the courses we advocate will no doubt produce regrettable outcomes that could not be forseen. But at least with mine, we'd be able to tut-tut and shake our heads ruefully when Western Civilization is triumphant, and the values of an enlightened mind are allowed to look backwards at the mistakes and excesses. With yours, it won't be allowed, and the medieval barbarism that would then prohibit the free mind from any inquiry into the question of whether it really was God's will that allowed the enemy - that's 'us', the ones that maintained the futile fight until the zaravers of the world made it impossible to continue - to throw away the weapons that would've seen their triumph.

Do you get any of that?

[zraver]

I hope the Lawyer Corps is as effective as you imagine them to be in defending us. Frankly, I put zero faith in that course. You just have no real idea what this will lead to. It's already happening, and we've already suffered becaus of it, and it'll be fatal to some of our citizens, maybe all of us in the fullness of time.

And as for you, I think you're not a person of ill-will, but there is no question but that you're titanically ignorant of the fallout from your course of action, because you refuse to see where it will lead. There are a thousand ways that this will undermine us; a thousand more that will aid the enemy. And I hope your sense of personal legal hygeine is worth the blood that will inevitably be spilled because of it. It need not be, and there's simply no chance that we'll end up being fascists or whatever because we refused to manacle ourselves in wartime in a futile pursuit of war waged nicely.

The Law of Unintended Consequences never has so much force as during time of war. Each of the courses we advocate will no doubt produce regrettable outcomes that could not be forseen. But at least with mine, we'd be able to tut-tut and shake our heads ruefully when Western Civilization is triumphant, and the values of an enlightened mind are allowed to look backwards at the mistakes and excesses. With yours, it won't be allowed, and the medieval barbarism that would then prohibit the free mind from any inquiry into the question of whether it really was God's will that allowed the enemy - that's 'us', the ones that maintained the futile fight until the zaravers of the world made it impossible to continue - to throw away the weapons that would've seen their triumph.

Do you get any of that?

"people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both", Benjamin Franklin.

The rela danger is not terrorists, they can at most kill a few thousands. The real danger is the loss of liberty, that can enslave hundreds of millions. What the Federal Government can do to one, they can do to all. By extending those in our custody the protections we enjoy- the right to trial, the right to face their accuser, freedom from inhumane treatment we insure that the rest of us are also not at risk of those selfsame things. The biggest threat to freedom is not Abdullah with a bomb vest, but Americans who do not gras the fundamental truth that personal liberty, freedoms and rights- those are the things that matter.

I know you think the path you advocate is the correct one. However, every time it has been tried in our history it has backfired and the power thus handed to the government was abused. I am far more scared of a government that has the power of precedent to deny me my rights than I am of any foreign enemy.

[TopHatter]

No, actually, the argument about the merits of his point is a different matter. My point was that he's insane.

He IS, you know.

And my point is that personal attacks like that have no place here.

[pate]

How much longer will you be stuck so near Frisco? Or for you.... One of Dante's inner circles of hell.

Are you urging retreat, abandonment, evacuation? Who surrendered San Francisco to these evildoers? I reject the idea that just because people you don't agree with have flocked there en masse that one should abandon the area, call it quits... That smacks of weakness.

I shall attempt to say this without upsetting anyone.

I bought a house several years ago, in a neighborhood a bit on the shady side. In my time here the neighborhood's demographic has changed, but the reasons I bought the place haven't...

There is a bar down the street from me, that has gotten worse over the years, enough to be an annoyance. Enough that I have contemplated selling my house and moving somewhere else; but isn't that an imposition on my rights as a landowner?

I fought the bar's right to have a Sunday license, and lost. I dunno, as much as I'd love that bar to not be the type of bar that it is, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. I'd feel defeated if I up and sold out and moved away.

I just don't agree with the idea that 'they' have moved into 'my' neighborhood and therefore 'I' have to move away... Something about the tyranny of the majority and 'democratic' ideals (wonder why I put 'democratic' in quotes there...)

Stuck indeed, I choose to be here, perhaps as a bulwark of sanity in the sea of insanity... That's what separates 'me' from 'them' I guess...

Bluesman, couldn't agree with you more, fun thread! Don't give up the line, man...

HOLD FAST!

Also, personal attacks probably should be out unless they are directed my way... I can take it...

[bonehead]

The citizenry is clueless, most of 'em. They seem to not have made the connection between their one-party hive-mind voting pattern and the complete mis-rule that results. I think they must believe that just one more government program, just one more tax hike, and they'll return California to the shangri-la that it once was.

But of course, they continue to govern like liberals, and they continue to poison the Garden of Eden. It's so bad now that California's credit rating is dead last; Number Fifty among the states. Highest taxation rate, too, but of course nobody has seemed to make any correlation of those two facts.

It's not even so bad yet that they don't consider even MORE madness. If I had more time, I could list some of the items the legislature is considering, and you'd think I was kidding. But I wouldn't be. It's just not funny anymore. And it's going to be truly tragic before the final act plays out, because as bad as it is, the Democrats in control seem not to have any idea their Ship of State has hit a reef and is on fire from stem to stern.

The mega-state, with every advantage of location, climate, resources, wealth, infrastructure, education and sheer POWER that would be the envy of any nation on Earth, and they've brought themselves to the brink of complete ruin and collapse. 'Too big to fail' may have saved a company or two this year, but the country is out of ammo now, and there's no way to save the country's dynamo, the power plant for the rest of America. California is a main beam running through the length of United States economic power, and if it shatters, it isn't just Californians that will suffer. They're going to take us all with 'em, because they've had a really awesome party for the past 30 years.

When the curtain comes down, the shock will be as nothing else the country has seen since Reconstruction.

I have been expecting California to fall since the late 1980's. From the southern border to Redding and from the coast to the sierras it is nothing less than Alice's wonderland. You fell down the rabbit hole when you moved there. There is no question about that.

[art]

Quote:
Yes, Bush did some things that were questionable, but Bush isn't the President anymore. He is no longer the issue, and I'm sick of liberals using that excuse when they want to deflect criticism aimed at Obama.



Liberal = Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Conservative =Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Politics are all the same. It doesn’t matter which party is in office or who you vote for. They’re all alike.

By the way, I belong to neither groups, I'm what you call a "Swing Voter."

I only care for what's best for my country, and I have 20 years serving her in the armed forces to prove it.

Right now, all of these bickering are not helping out country at all!
With the left wing media and the right pouring fuel into the fire, the US is in the verge of a civil war! is this what we want!

We elected a government and we must live with it whether we like it or nor, and just wait until the next election to elect another party, thats democracy.

I blame all of the media for creating all of this hate I have been seeing, and it is sad indeed to see it. I wonder what our country founders would think of all of these hate in America, it's a shame indeed.

[Steezy]

That's insane. You're completely mad.

Yep; mad as a rat in a coffee can.

No, actually, the argument about the merits of his point is a different matter. My point was that he's insane.

He IS, you know.

This guy has issues.

And as for you, I think you're not a person of ill-will, but there is no question but that you're titanically ignorant of the fallout from your course of action, because you refuse to see where it will lead. There are a thousand ways that this will undermine us; a thousand more that will aid the enemy. And I hope your sense of personal legal hygeine is worth the blood that will inevitably be spilled because of it. It need not be, and there's simply no chance that we'll end up being fascists or whatever because we refused to manacle ourselves in wartime in a futile pursuit of war waged nicely.

Pretty poor attempt at sprouting scaremongering nonsense. Your approach will never work either, it'd just strengthen the will of the enemy. Much less than a more rational approach, at the very least.
Oh wait, this guy:

I just don't agree with the idea that 'they' have moved into 'my' neighborhood and therefore 'I' have to move away

Newsflash, it's not your neighbourhood. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You're basically talking to yourself and thinking it's someone else speaking to you.

Back to Bluesman, you really think you're different from this big enemy that you hate so much, don't you. Reading what I've read, you're the closest person to them on this forum that I've seen. Just gotta swap a few words here and there, but alot of your rhetoric is similar, and frightening.

[bonehead]

Are you urging retreat, abandonment, evacuation? Who surrendered San Francisco to these evildoers? I reject the idea that just because people you don't agree with have flocked there en masse that one should abandon the area, call it quits... That smacks of weakness.

I shall attempt to say this without upsetting anyone.

I bought a house several years ago, in a neighborhood a bit on the shady side. In my time here the neighborhood's demographic has changed, but the reasons I bought the place haven't...

There is a bar down the street from me, that has gotten worse over the years, enough to be an annoyance. Enough that I have contemplated selling my house and moving somewhere else; but isn't that an imposition on my rights as a landowner?

I fought the bar's right to have a Sunday license, and lost. I dunno, as much as I'd love that bar to not be the type of bar that it is, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. I'd feel defeated if I up and sold out and moved away.

I just don't agree with the idea that 'they' have moved into 'my' neighborhood and therefore 'I' have to move away... Something about the tyranny of the majority and 'democratic' ideals (wonder why I put 'democratic' in quotes there...)

Stuck indeed, I choose to be here, perhaps as a bulwark of sanity in the sea of insanity... That's what separates 'me' from 'them' I guess...

Bluesman, couldn't agree with you more, fun thread! Don't give up the line, man...

HOLD FAST!

Also, personal attacks probably should be out unless they are directed my way... I can take it...

Bluesman has no roots where he is now. If memory serves he is there because his wife was transfered there. You know military life... here one day and there the next. Ideologically, He is surrounded and outnumbered 100,000:1 by the most excruciatingly mindless people you can imagine. God only knows how bluesman keeps his sanity. The Sanfrancisco area is a world class shit hole and I see no hope for it. Just look at the frisco area two biggest contributions to our government, Pelosy and Feinstein. That should tell you all you need to know. If anything, retreat and a scorched earth policy would best serve the country. Your story is a bit different.

[TopHatter]

This guy has issues.

And they've been addressed. Move on.

[Stan]

Im just wondering if we have any democrats on this board?

[zraver]

Im just wondering if we have any democrats on this board?

Yes not many but a few. We also have some Constitutional Liberals like myself (Libertarians).

[kmchugh]

But once they are brought here for justice the constitution kicks in.

Sorry, have to butt in here. Check your facts a little more closely, because this is simply false. The US constitution applies to US persons. It does not apply to foreign lands or peoples. Enemy combatants captured during combat in no way fit the definition of a US person. Hence, the protections of the constitution do not apply. Want an example? No problem.

In WW II, a large number of captured German soldiers were brought to EPW camps in the US (there was at least one in Kansas, my home state). Had the protections of the constitution applied, each of these German soldiers would have had to have a lawyer appointed, at government expense. Each of these lawyers would have immediately applied for a writ of habeas corpus, and would have had their client brought before a judge. Said judge would have been required to release each of these PW's. You see, it is not illegal to be a soldier in a foreign military engaged in combat against the US. Under the constitution, these German prisoners had committed no crimes, and could therefore not have been held.

Edited to add: Now that I have posted this, I see that Bluesman already touched on the same thing. Sorry dude, but I did flesh it out a bit for you.