[MMM]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

My bad, I meant the senate (actually there's around 55 seats belonging to the Democrats). My point still stands there's really no opposition to getting any bill passed by Obama or democrats which is a huge problem seeing how the system is supposed to be a two-party.

It has been less than 100 days since Obama has taken office and he has hardly a free ride in terms of what he wants to get done.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

That post is sarcastic.

No sarcasm at all.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Point being he forgets why we fight, and the fact that we CANNOT let Iran get an nuclear weapon, that is the only country right now that we can even prepare for. He has even down played there arrogant and threatening nature. Terrorism does not constitute an police matter, it's an act of war.

I made no comment about Iran, and I agree 100%

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Obama does, I mean when you through political correctness on the matter, your asking for trouble. I do also believe by the way things do go, a lot of people have forgotten it.

I can't understand what you are saying here. But trust me. no American has or will forget 9/11. To say so is silly.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

No, it wouldn't seeing how Bush actually fought an War on Terror. He didn't call it an "man-caused disaster". Obama has shown he doesn't care to call Terrorism and the War of Terror what it is. Also when you stop an Terrorist trial for political gain your asking for it.

When we fight wars against countries and call them something that they are not, it is disingenuous. The war in Iraq is not a war on "terror". It is a war on Iraq. It is the same with the "War on Drugs" that Pres. Reagan enacted. That was a good ride for some nice invasions.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

When you have the Tim Geithner come out and say he open to a word currency (thus causing the dollar to all even more) and the guy who picks him does not chastise for that comment you have an problem. Then you have at the G20 "charter of sustainable economic activity," trumpeted especially by France and Germany, mixes statements of the obvious with rhetoric that baldly calls for the U.S. to relinquish its sovereign authority over economic policy to a global government. Of immediate concern is the charter's appeal for global, supranational financial regulation--a clear European power grab to contain and diminish the role and freedom of the U.S. financial sector. Wither you like the those commentators or not does not change if they speak facts every know and then.

I don't know enough to say you are right or wrong on this point. The news is still coming in here. You can be sure that American people have no desire to remain the world's police (a position probably established by them) so change is afoot. I would love to see France and Germany establish more authority, especially in their nearby surroundings.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

OK so Gitmo constitute torture, the only thing that is even controversial is water boarding

If that was all, then there wouldn't have been a controversy. There was all kinds of torture besides waterboarding. That is the one that got political attention.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

, which was only done to a very few number of people. Umm, there prisoners of war fellow, they would go back to kill Americans if we let them go.

We have spent years torturing men who know nothing. Torture them, and then they tell something. What they tell is "whatever it takes to make you stop torturing me".

So we should detain them because we tortured them and now they will want revenge?

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Secondly there where criminal cases being processed there, but because Obama wanted to close it without thinking that causes those cases to be dropped (to be picked up at a later date) which has very serious impacts that can lead to some terrorists going free. There are cases for people going free, thus the system did work. Iraq, he would not admit the surge worked, which by the way does not give him the credit to ask for an surge in Afghanistan when you would not admit to being wrong about the first surge.

Like I told AlanX, open a newspaper. 1) no criminal cases are being dropped. People without charges against them might be let go, but that is two different things.

2) He never said the surge in Iraq didn't work. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

3) He is planning in moving troops into Afghanistan... so I am not sure what you saying.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Oh and your Rush statement "I hope Obama fails" wasn't heard by I guarantee that because that quote is so badly misconstrued to make him look horrible. Actually listen to the ACTUAL CONVERSATION.

Transcript

"So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it."

YouTube - Rush Limbaugh - I Hope Obama Fails

I didn't misconstrue a thing. Rush Limbaugh hopes the new President will fail. His words: I hope he fails. How is that a good thing? How is that positive? It isn't. It is negative and divisive.