President Barack Obama

[fishermanwife]

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday, becoming the nation's first African-American president after a history-making run for the White House. Obama took the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts at the U.S. Capitol.

History is in the making.. Change is going to begin for the better..

I feel I am in good hands now.. :Smile:

[Granny Fish]

Definately history in the making. My prayers go out to Obama, cause there is no one who could live up to the high expectations that so many people hold him up to.

On another note, I hope those same people with the high expectations have new found confidence in the economy and will go out and spend money.

[FISHSTIX]

:Beer Toast:This is now officially an OBAMA nation:Applause:...id like to give a shout out to George W......:Finger:

[Sue]

We actually turned the phones off at work and went to the cafe next door to watch it on the big screen.
Watching history being made.....awesome!

[KaliDawgFan]

Although I didn't vote for him, I will be routing for him.

[DCCTrouserTrout]

All I can say is this guy is nuts for wanting to take on this job... What a mess he walked in to... Time to make us proud Mr. President

[candyman]

I listened to the whole thing on the way to MT. High today. This is now the start towards the better. Oh by the way did you guys hear him mess up during the oath :Secret::ROFL:

[fishermanwife]

I listened to the whole thing on the way to MT. High today. This is now the start towards the better. Oh by the way did you guys hear him mess up during the oath :Secret::ROFL:

WASHINGTON — When Chief Justice John Roberts began the presidential oath, he asked President Obama, "Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?" Obama said he was.
Yet it appeared Roberts wasn't quite set
Roberts, who was administering the oath for the first time, had some trouble with the pauses — which allow time for the president to repeat the 35-word consitutional oath — and with the order of the phrasing.
As he began, Roberts paused slightly after saying, "I, Barack Hussein Obama."

Obama started to repeat his name, but then Roberts continued, speaking over Obama: " … do solemnly swear …"
Obama caught up with both phrases. Then the awkwardness continued.
Roberts, 53, said, "… that I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully."
Obama, 47, began to repeat the chief justice's words but then paused, apparently realizing they were not quite right. The proper phrase is: "… that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States … ."
Roberts, who then began to correct himself, did not appear to have the wording of the oath handy for reference. His immediate predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, used to practice the oath repeatedly before the event and would bring a card with him for extra measure. The card showed the words of the oath and indications for pauses.
Television commentators, such as CNN's Wolf Blitzer, highlighted Roberts' mistake and the Internet was awash in commentary about whether the confusion reflected tension between the two men. Obama, as a senator, had voted against Roberts' confirmation for chief justice in 2005. In a posting on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, run by University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Eugene Volokh, University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenterreferred to the "most awkward oath of office in decades" and questioned whether it showed "an unusually uneasy relationship."
To which George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr responded, "Sometimes a flubbed line is just a flubbed line."
Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Roberts was not available to comment.
At a luncheon for the new president and other dignitaries at the Capitol after the Inauguration, Obama cheerfully greeted the justices in attendance. When he saw Roberts, he gave him a friendly slap on the back.




So, Obama did not fumble up on the Oath, Roberts did. Obama noticed the mistake and paused. Roberts realizing and quickly corrected.. To the eyes and ears of the public it may have looked like Obama had made the mistake, but actually he noticed the mistake of Roberts and paused for Roberts to correct himself.. :Wink:

[olfishergal]

Now, he needs to set a good example for the youth of this country and STOP smoking....

[baadfish69]

WASHINGTON — When Chief Justice John Roberts began the presidential oath, he asked President Obama, "Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?" Obama said he was.
Yet it appeared Roberts wasn't quite set
Roberts, who was administering the oath for the first time, had some trouble with the pauses — which allow time for the president to repeat the 35-word consitutional oath — and with the order of the phrasing.
As he began, Roberts paused slightly after saying, "I, Barack Hussein Obama."

Obama started to repeat his name, but then Roberts continued, speaking over Obama: " … do solemnly swear …"
Obama caught up with both phrases. Then the awkwardness continued.
Roberts, 53, said, "… that I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully."
Obama, 47, began to repeat the chief justice's words but then paused, apparently realizing they were not quite right. The proper phrase is: "… that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States … ."
Roberts, who then began to correct himself, did not appear to have the wording of the oath handy for reference. His immediate predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, used to practice the oath repeatedly before the event and would bring a card with him for extra measure. The card showed the words of the oath and indications for pauses.
Television commentators, such as CNN's Wolf Blitzer, highlighted Roberts' mistake and the Internet was awash in commentary about whether the confusion reflected tension between the two men. Obama, as a senator, had voted against Roberts' confirmation for chief justice in 2005. In a posting on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, run by University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Eugene Volokh, University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenterreferred to the "most awkward oath of office in decades" and questioned whether it showed "an unusually uneasy relationship."
To which George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr responded, "Sometimes a flubbed line is just a flubbed line."
Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Roberts was not available to comment.
At a luncheon for the new president and other dignitaries at the Capitol after the Inauguration, Obama cheerfully greeted the justices in attendance. When he saw Roberts, he gave him a friendly slap on the back.




So, Obama did not fumble up on the Oath, Roberts did. Obama noticed the mistake and paused. Roberts realizing and quickly corrected.. To the eyes and ears of the public it may have looked like Obama had made the mistake, but actually he noticed the mistake of Roberts and paused for Roberts to correct himself.. :Wink:



Holy crap! I didnt realize that! I noticed the mishap, but assumed Obama misheard Roberts. Though it didnt bother me at all, (knowing he HAD to be nervous)...I was just waiting for the die hard conservatives to jump on Obama for it. Im glad to hear that it wasnt him!

Actually, I am quite impressed on how both parties and their followers seem to be very gracious right now. This is obviously more about the country right now, than Republican vs. Democrat. Its amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Today was one of the most inspiring days of my life.

[fndaway66]

Be careful what you wish for!!

Alarm Bells Ring- Key Obama Job Goes to Animal Rights Supporter
Harvard Law Professor to Head Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
1/20/09

The new head of a federal office with review authority over all agency rules has an extensive record supporting animal rights and even calling for the banning of hunting. This raises the possibility of pro- hunting, FISHING, and trapping rules being deep sixed before they ever get a chance to move forward.

The new head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will be law professor Cass Sunstein. Picked by President Obama from his perch at Harvard, Sunstein’s long time positions on animal rights immediately ring alarm bells for sportsmen.

Sunstein has been an unyielding advocate for the animal rights movement. He has written extensively on the subject and shown a strong dislike towards hunting, going so far as to say that “we might ban hunting altogether, at least if it’s sole purpose is human recreation.” He also has suggested that it makes sense to begin “allowing suits on behalf of animals.” As the editor of a well known 2004 book on animal rights, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions; he compiled legal arguments made by numerous leaders of the movement. You can read some of Sunstein’s thoughts on animal rights by Clicking Here.

The concern over Sunstein’s views stems from the authority he will have as the head of the OIRA. While few people have ever heard of it, the OIRA has significant power over regulations coming from federal agencies.

A part of the federal budget office, the OIRA has been given extensive authority to perform data based cost/benefit analyses of all new federal regulations. Though not allowed to issue opinions on the merits of any proposed regulations, the OIRA can block rules if it considers the supporting data not strong.

It requires little imagination to envision an ardent opponent of hunting finding numerous technical reasons to put the kibosh on pro-hunting regulations for years to come.

The USSA will continue monitoring these developments.

[BingJr]

I didnt vote for him. Wish him the best. I am a bit scared with the lack of checks and balances that he will have. Some crazy stuff once thought impossible to get to happen can happen due to the lack of checks and balances. He needs to fix the BCS as well.

[Wingnut]

All aboard the Obama bandwagon...

I for one, will wait 180 days before climbing on. You can tell a lot from a President by what he can do in his first 6 months in office.

I wish him the best of luck... he's going to need it.

[DarkShadow]

I don't expect anything positive for a good, 8 years.

Kinda hard when you're handed off a structure that is burning to the ground, and you're expected to save it.

:Cool:

[one_leg]

Be careful what you wish for!!

Alarm Bells Ring- Key Obama Job Goes to Animal Rights Supporter
Harvard Law Professor to Head Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
1/20/09

The new head of a federal office with review authority over all agency rules has an extensive record supporting animal rights and even calling for the banning of hunting. This raises the possibility of pro- hunting, FISHING, and trapping rules being deep sixed before they ever get a chance to move forward.



Yeah, I can imagine lots of lawsuits going forward due to this appointment.

Obama has never fished or hunted in his entire life.


Good thing that the Supreme Court finally ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individuals right to keep and bear arms.



I hope that President B. Hussein Obama doesn't make too many waves.
And also that things don't get too much worse while he is in office.

[fishermanwife]

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr282/fishingnetwork/obama-3.gif


OBAMAS PRESIDENT OH YEAH, OH YEAH!!! :ROFL:

[exfactor]

Presidential inaugaration 170 million dollars. Stock market drops 338 points to below 8000. I would like to see a president that try's to save some money. Instead of expecting all of us to pay more taxes to make things fly. My 2cents

[PureAle]

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr282/fishingnetwork/obama-3.gif


OBAMAS PRESIDENT OH YEAH, OH YEAH!!! :ROFL:

HAHAHA!!!!

thats funny.:ROFL::ROFL:

[DCCTrouserTrout]

Presidential inaugaration 170 million dollars. Stock market drops 338 points to below 8000. I would like to see a president that try's to save some money. Instead of expecting all of us to pay more taxes to make things fly. My 2cents

No kidding, huh?

[fishermanwife]

I suppose you all feel Bush was doing a better job than what Obama has the potential of doing? Mccain would have been another Bush in office.. Obama is by far the better choice of the two. I am excited for the new change.. Remember change does not happen over night.. This will take years for Obama to fix the screw up Bush left behind. :Rolls Eyes:

[Santa Fe Eric]

Presidential inaugaration 170 million dollars. Stock market drops 338 points to below 8000. I would like to see a president that try's to save some money. Instead of expecting all of us to pay more taxes to make things fly. My 2cents


No kidding, huh?

My friends I think that you misunderstood. It was actually a 170 million dollar going away party for Bush. I expect Obama to get the same criticism as all politicians. However, I don't believe that people will be that fair. People will forget all about the "Hell Hole" that Bush created and snap impatiently at Obama because he didn't fix it fast enough. I'm sure that all of the economic, mortal, and emotional casualties of the recent wars will need Obama's magic wand as well. The fact is people don't expect him to just be better than Bush, that would be too easy.

[KaliDawgFan]

This will take years for Obama to fix

He only has 2 to 3 years until the next campaign starts. He better hurry if he wants another term.

[fishermanwife]

He only has 2 to 3 years until the next campaign starts. He better hurry if he wants another term.

In two to three years you will see a change... Will it be a dramatic one.. We will see.. Remember, things still have to go through Congress to be finalized.. He will fight for the changes, but some matters still have to be voted on. They say in 16 months he plans on bringing home some of our troops, as you can see its not an over the night task, but it will be done with some time. Just, like it took Bush a span of 8 years to screw us over.. It will take 4 to 8 years for Obama to straighten things out... Yeah, I wish he had a magic wand that he could waive to wake up to a fix, but reality that is not going to happen. He is human not a robot.. So, lets work together as a country and help our president fix the damage that has been done.. I will start by going back to school to better myself in a new career. :Wink: By, doing so, that will give me more money to spend on American made items. :Wink:

[tpfishnfool]

Obama has been handed a bag of s@#t that he will most likely hand over to some other political pon in 4-8 years. This (Dude) or any other cant fix what is broken in this country all by himself. We as a nation have to change... CHANGE OUR SHORTS !!!! WE ARE F'D !!!!

[tpfishnfool]

My point was , all these people think this guy is just going to waltz in here and snap his fingers and all will be fine.. Wake the F up people !! We are in for a few more years of lean economic times as well as guarding against evil from abroad . Long haul baby !!

[fishermanwife]

Hey Bush wasn't a 100% rotten egg.. He was just an expired one.. Time for change and bring in a fresh new President to take charge.

[greeper]

yea Obama is a Genious look at who he picks as an economic advisor, a racist prick

This crap makes me sick to my stomach when I thing who Obama chooses to help lead this country.. Anyone who doesn't have a problem with this outta have their head examined. Just change "White Construction worker" to any other ethnicity and you'll have holy hell.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=263543

By the way MLK would be turning over in his grave if he heard this.

[one_leg]

The Dumbacrats and Reapublicans are almost identical while in office.
We are just too braindwashed to notice that fact.
I think we will only see real change when a female is president.


http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb155/raul_duke_photos/mary_carey_03.jpg


Mary Carey for President.

2012

[City Dad]

I think that 99.999% of the population has made up their mind already as to what kind of president the man will be.

[greeper]

I think that 99.999% of the population has made up their mind already as to what kind of president the man will be.


funny half the country didn't vote for him. I pray he'll be the man you want, but so far not seeing it.

[SOUTHPAWSTICK]

I hope Obama can keep us as safe as Bush did. I don't think closing Gitmo is the smart thing to do. You know when they release those terrorists they will be back trying to kill U. S soilders.

Remember who started this financial mess, Barney Frank and the Democrats in Congress. Making banks loan money to people who could not afford to buy a home. Lets hope Obama can stand up to these idiots who want to give tax refunds to people who don't pay taxes.

[fishermanwife]

funny half the country didn't vote for him. I pray he'll be the man you want, but so far not seeing it.


Geez, he has only been President for 2 days!!!! Give me a break :Rolls Eyes:

[SOUTHPAWSTICK]

Yes, He has been President for two days and already he signed an executive order to close Gitmo, and the CIA has to use the Army field manuel to question terrorists. You might as well give the terrorists a recliner chair and a glass of iced tea. You wouldn't want them to be uncomfortable. The only thing they did was kill a U.S. soilder.

[greeper]

Geez, he has only been President for 2 days!!!! Give me a break :Rolls Eyes:
why no one gave Bush a break the first Day he became president nor did they give him a break when he took us out of a recession handed over by Clinton, instead he was criticized by the left for spending approximately 40 million at the time, but of course it's ok for NOBAMA to spend 170 million when were in a recession his close friends help start, they didn't Bush credit when he brought the unemployment rate lower then during the Clinton era they haven't given him credit for keeping this country safe from attack since 9/11,etc.. etc... etc... Obama came in with no plan except the word CHANGE, now he's going to place terrorist into our city jails and state prisons where some liberal judge could possibly have the opportunity to set them free.. Just Great.......... You can say all the negative things you'd like about Bush, I have plenty I disliked about what he did, but I'd take him anyday over a liberal with socialist ideals. If I wanted that I could move to Europe.

I'll give Obama a chance Like I said I want him to succeed as our President as long as he pursues a free democracy, I want him to fail if he plans on changing everything to a Socialist Democracy...

[fishermanwife]

Bill Clinton's economic legacy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/590000/images/_590532_gdp_300.gif

Clinton's achievements
Longest boom in US history
$4,000bn budget surplus
Trade deals with China, NAFTA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/590000/images/_590532_unemployment_150.gif

Healthy public finances
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1110000/images/_1110165_budget_surplus2_300graph.gif

Economic boom
Mr Clinton's most enduring legacy is likely to be the economic boom which began shortly before he took office in 1992.




During the eight years of the presidency, the economy expanded by 50% in real terms, and by the end of his tenure the US had a gross national product of $10,000bn - one quarter of the entire world economic output

__________________________________________________ ______________
January 20, 2001 $431 Billion Surplus
Under Bush:


$734 Billion Deficit







Jobs created


January 20,2001 1.76 Million Jobs Per Year


under Bush


369,000 Jobs Per Year






Cost of college


January 20, 2001 $3,164 per year


under Bush


$5,192 per year






US trade Deficit


January 20, 2001 $380 Billion


under Bush


$759 Billion






Strength of U.S dollar



January 20, 2001 1.07 Euros per Dollar


under Bush


0.68 Euros Per Dollar






That is just some of the statistics I looked up.. :Wink:

[Sue]

If I wanted that I could move to Europe.




Send me your email address, I'll paypal you the airfare. First class. And you can stay at my brothers, dad's or uncle's place for free.

Edited to clarify: That's English sarcasm. What it actually means is......bleep off.

[guest007]

I hope Obama can keep us as safe as Bush did. I don't think closing Gitmo is the smart thing to do.

Bush didn't keep us safe. He was too concerned with his "missle defense shield" to heed the warning from democrats about the real threat from AlQueda terrorists. Right after Bush came into power, the FBI had wrappped up their investigation into the USS Cole bombing. They told the Bush administration that AlQueda was responsible. Bush did nothing. Richard Clarke warned the administration about Bin Ladens efforts to attack the west, and still Bush did nothing. Even a August 2001 presidential daily briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" wasn't enough to warrant action from Bush or his people. So don't give me this bull$hit about Bush keeping us safe. He was asleep at the wheel and they nailed us. Bush did not care at all about terorrism until after the twin towers fell.
As for gitmo. Only a very small percentage of those being held are actually AlQueda. The overwhelming majority are people who just got caught-up in the fighting in Afghanistan. We've detained them for seven years with no charges and no way for them to prove they are not terrorists. This is not something that the leading country of the free world should be doing. How can we condemn other countries about human rights while we run a detention center like Gitmo?

[joe man]

Yes, He has been President for two days and already he signed an executive order to close Gitmo, and the CIA has to use the Army field manuel to question terrorists. You might as well give the terrorists a recliner chair and a glass of iced tea. You wouldn't want them to be uncomfortable. The only thing they did was kill a U.S. soilder.

Inside sources have just released word that Obama will also sign orders to reverse abortion ban. This ban prevents US tax dollars from paying for abortions on an intrnational level. By signing the reversal we will send our taxes overseas to pay for abortions. It is time to keep our tax dollars in our country and stop paying for things that are not outlined in the Constitution.

[greeper]

Some of you are so funny it's obvious you've done little to know the truth, I'm happy to bleep off that won't be the first time nor the last time I've been told that. I find it truly comical you can't handle being told facts that don't go your way. I am not nor have I been a Bush Coolaide drinker, the guy couldn't have been more of an idiot with his over spending and immigration policies. However, he did inherit a recession from Clinton that's a fact, he did lower the unemployment rate, those facts aren't even debatable..

As for moving to Europe it was stated in Sarcasm if Obama goes with his socialist democracy policies. I truly cannot comprehend why anyone in their right mind would be ok with that. No where in our constitution does it state those ideals, our founding fathers would be turning over in their graves at those ideas. Also, with your minute intellect please explain to me how the loss of property rights will better this country? I'd really like to know..

Once again unlike most Victocrats I do hope and pray Obama is successful and moves this country forward, so far with his first main decisions I feel he is already taking steps backwards.. Time will only tell.

Now I'm off to teach my Social Studies students the real truth about a Free Democracy! Done with with beating a dead horse..


Talking Politics and Religion is like pounding sand, you get nowhere, especially on a message board..

[greeper]

Bush didn't keep us safe. He was too concerned with his "missle defense shield" to heed the warning from democrats about the real threat from AlQueda terrorists. Right after Bush came into power, the FBI had wrappped up their investigation into the USS Cole bombing. They told the Bush administration that AlQueda was responsible. Bush did nothing. Richard Clarke warned the administration about Bin Ladens efforts to attack the west, and still Bush did nothing. Even a August 2001 presidential daily briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" wasn't enough to warrant action from Bush or his people. So don't give me this bull$hit about Bush keeping us safe. He was asleep at the wheel and they nailed us. Bush did not care at all about terorrism until after the twin towers fell.
As for gitmo. Only a very small percentage of those being held are actually AlQueda. The overwhelming majority are people who just got caught-up in the fighting in Afghanistan. We've detained them for seven years with no charges and no way for them to prove they are not terrorists. This is not something that the leading country of the free world should be doing. How can we condemn other countries about human rights while we run a detention center like Gitmo?

Holy crap I'm laughing at your bullshit:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL: :ROFL::ROFL::ROFL: You've been reading too many books by the left wing propagandist Oh crap this stuff is funny as hell, quit reading the Huffingtonpost it's not good for the brain. You'd be better off smoking crack:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:

[guest007]

Holy crap I'm laughing at your bullshit:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL: :ROFL::ROFL::ROFL: You've been reading too many books by the left wing propagandist Oh crap this stuff is funny as hell, quit reading the Huffingtonpost it's not good for the brain. You'd be better off smoking crack:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:

Please, enlighten me with your facts to the contrary. Don't just post a party line retort. Your a teacher, I expect more.

[Granny Fish]

Inside sources have just released word that Obama will also sign orders to reverse abortion ban. This ban prevents US tax dollars from paying for abortions on an intrnational level. By signing the reversal we will send our taxes overseas to pay for abortions. It is time to keep our tax dollars in our country and stop paying for things that are not outlined in the Constitution.

If America funds abortions in other countries, could that be considered genocide?

[joe man]

If America funds abortions in other countries, could that be considered genocide?

According to my morals I say yes but then again not everyone has my morals. I do know that it is wrong for my government to force me to pay for something I find to be immoral and is not in the defense of the country. I would not approve of my tax dollars going to abortions in the US alone but I really have a problem funding it overseas.

[one_leg]

Well, if they are gonna fund them I just hope that the people that are
aborted are the ones that would have crossed our borders illegally.

[mako chaser]

Well, if they are gonna fund them I just hope that the people that are
aborted are the ones that would have crossed our borders illegally.


LOL... Not a chance OL. That's the reason they sneak over here. Have the little one----instant citizenship. Then reap the benefits.

[City Dad]

funny half the country didn't vote for him. I pray he'll be the man you want, but so far not seeing it.

I think you missunderstood. What I said was that everyone has expectations of Obama - Some are sure he'll make money rain from the sky, some are sure he'll make God's wrath rain from the Sky (and onto the USA) and you know that expectations are usually nothing more than resentments under construction.

And please don't feel compelled to pray for what you think I want... I know that as a Social Studies teacher all of your assertions are above question... but I've yet to see any evidence that you are clairvoyant ;)

[one_leg]

but I've yet to see any evidence that you are clairvoyant ;)


How about me?

City Dad, I see you wanting to catch some really large Perch in the future.

[wellbilldancesays]

This is what crack me up its always about change. Except its always the same two parties taking the office for the last 156 years, since Millard Fillmore (Whig Party) 1850-1853.

So as you can see its only back and forth , but no "change".

Congrats America you've been duped again!

But dont feel bad in other 4-8 years it'll be the republicans that get to sing the change song and as history shows we'll fall for it once again.


-Would you like Coke or Sprite?
Anything else?
- Your choices are Coke or Sprite.
How about some RC Cola?
-Coke or Sprite and shut up!
Sheesh, I guess I'll settle for the Coke then.

[SOUTHPAWSTICK]

What make you think the terrorists at Gitmo are innocent. They were caught on the battlefield trying to kill U.S. troops. There are some who have been caught again after they were released. When they are released they just go back to doing the same thing. Also the Geneva convention only applies to a uniformed army from a country. These religious fanatics don't have uniforms and they are from different countries. So this no water boarding thing doesn't apply. We need to do what ever it takes to protect American lives.

They hide behind women and children and hide their weapons in schools. Look at Hamas, they hide and shoot missles from schools and churches. What kind of a human being hides behind innocent children.

I wish Obama the best. He is the president and I will respect him. Not like most democrats who would not support Bush and would not show him the respect a president deserves.

[joe man]

What make you think the terrorists at Gitmo are innocent. They were caught on the battlefield trying to kill U.S. troops. There are some who have been caught again after they were released. When they are released they just go back to doing the same thing. Also the Geneva convention only applies to a uniformed army from a country. These religious fanatics don't have uniforms and they are from different countries. So this no water boarding thing doesn't apply. We need to do what ever it takes to protect American lives.

They hide behind women and children and hide their weapons in schools. Look at Hamas, they hide and shoot missles from schools and churches. What kind of a human being hides behind innocent children.

I wish Obama the best. He is the president and I will respect him. Not like most democrats who would not support Bush and would not show him the respect a president deserves.


I think only a few of us know the Geneva Converntion has stipulations as to who is covered. I keep hearing about violations of the convention but the people who make those claims do not know what the convention says, they just follow the crap they hear from Hollywood.

[City Dad]

I think only a few of us know the Geneva Converntion has stipulations as to who is covered. I keep hearing about violations of the convention but the people who make those claims do not know what the convention says, they just follow the crap they hear from Hollywood.

Ahmen, brother. Like, a lot of people don't know that tricking a high-ranking Nazi officer into falling in love with a male prisoner of war dressed up as a hot frau is punishable by no more than "thirty days in the cooler!" and also that it is perfectly acceptable to bribe a fat prison guard with delicious apple struddle.

You fight the good fight, JM. Good thing there's fellahs like you and me around share the specifics, huh?

[Scoring Machine]

If America funds abortions in other countries, could that be considered genocide?

Is that a serious question?

If you want to try and make the case that abortion is murder, that's your prerogative, but genocide? That's simply hyperbole.

The Nazis exterminating the jews? That's Genocide.

What the Turks did to the Armenians? That's Genocide.

Funding abortions? Not so much. If the U.S. goes to these countries and starts exterminating everyone? Now that is genocide.

[one_leg]

I like to practice Genocide on the fish.

[sansou]

Oh Schultzy...komen ze here, ve got za struedel you like!!

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk274/sansou/hogansheroes.jpg

[City Dad]

That's simply hyperbole

... I don't know what you're trying to put over on us, SM, but everyone knows that hyperbole is a really, like, a totally awsome topwater striper bite... which has nothing to do with with genocide or genfront or genobehind!!!:Rolls Eyes:

[one_leg]

some are sure he'll make God's wrath rain from the Sky (and onto the USA)



It will, if his pastor gets his way.

[City Dad]

It will, if his pastor gets his way.



IMHO this whole pastor thing boils down to nothing more than another empty gesture meant to convince religious bullies that this president, though black, still shares their bitter, petty, wrathfull view of life...

[guest007]

Here is some info on the Gitmo detainees. This is compiled from a report prepared by a law firm, based entirely on Defence Department data.

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants - mostly Uighers - are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

You can read the whole report here:
http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

If 92% of the detainees were not fighters, and 55% committed no hostile act, why were they designated as enemy combatants in the first place? And why are they still being held? This is why President Obama is shutting the place down.

[joe man]

Here is some info on the Gitmo detainees. This is compiled from a report prepared by a law firm, based entirely on Defence Department data.

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants - mostly Uighers - are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

You can read the whole report here:
http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

If 92% of the detainees were not fighters, and 55% committed no hostile act, why were they designated as enemy combatants in the first place? And why are they still being held? This is why President Obama is shutting the place down.

To be honest with you I am not against the closing of Gitmo even though I do not approve of the direction Obama wishes to take the country. I do think that the closing should be well thought out. The prisoners who are in fact enemy combatants should not be tried in civilian courts. I think tribunals should be able to verify reasonable well the danger of most people in custody. If there is strong evidence that someone is an enemy to the US then they should not be released until the war is over.

[SOUTHPAWSTICK]

If 55% committed no hostile act then that means 45% committed a hostile act toward American Soilders. Then why are they closing it. Send the ones who are not hostile back to their country. The 45% who are hostile need to stay and be tried in tribunals and interigated until they give up all the info they have. The most important thing is to save American soilders' lives and to keep these people from committing hostile acts on American soil.

When they do close Gitmo, I think they should send them to Malibu. I'm sure all those liberal movie stars will want Obama to change his mind and keep Gitmo open.

[guest007]

Southpaw, I think your misunderstanding what line 1 means.
1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
This doesn't mean the other 45% are guilty. Although I think some of them probably are. What this line means, is that we are knowningly holding innocent people. According to our own government, these people did nothing to us. Yet they are being held indefinately, for no reason whatsoever. That is just plain wrong. It is wrong for any country in the world to hold innocent people as prisoners, especially ours. We're supposed to be the good guys, remember?

[sansou]

"...are not determined to have committed any hostile acts..."

That's plaintiff wording.

On the defense, this could also be construed as one way of saying that they have YET to conclude whether or not they committed hostile acts. Practically speaking, more waterboarding will be needed to complete the report. Joking.

Besides, isn't this all a moot point? The DOD just reported that a good bunch of these allegedly innocent Gitmo detainees once released went straight back to Al Qaida. The question to me is whether or not any of the released who went back to Al Qaida were part of the "not determined" group.

Then again, I guess if I was innocent to begin with, subsequently detained for no good reason at Gitmo, deprived of meaningful counsel, subjected to "persuasive counseling" for a few years......I guess I might harbor a lil' grudge against America and join Al Qaida the moment I get released.

Closing that part of Gitmo is a temporary "PR" spin in my opinion. The spector of now having to potentially have cases be heard before administrative law judges is scary. ALJ judges are a different kind of lawyer. (I'm being polite).

[joe man]

"...are not determined to have committed any hostile acts..."

That's plaintiff wording.

On the defense, this could also be construed as one way of saying that they have YET to conclude whether or not they committed hostile acts. Practically speaking, more waterboarding will be needed to complete the report. Joking.

Besides, isn't this all a moot point? The DOD just reported that a good bunch of these allegedly innocent Gitmo detainees once released went straight back to Al Qaida. The question to me is whether or not any of the released who went back to Al Qaida were part of the "not determined" group.

Then again, I guess if I was innocent to begin with, subsequently detained for no good reason at Gitmo, deprived of meaningful counsel, subjected to "persuasive counseling" for a few years......I guess I might harbor a lil' grudge against America and join Al Qaida the moment I get released.

Closing that part of Gitmo is a temporary "PR" spin in my opinion. The spector of now having to potentially have cases be heard before administrative law judges is scary. ALJ judges are a different kind of lawyer. (I'm being polite).

Very rarely does it happen but I actually agree with you on this political issue.

[SOUTHPAWSTICK]

Guest007, I agree with you. If some of those guys didn't do anything they should be sent back th their country. Also you said we are suppose to be the good guys. We are the good guys. I think thats what everyone forgets. We go over there to help these people who live like they are in the middle ages and all they do is try to kill us. Also they specifically target civillians (911). We try to avoid them.

[sansou]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_al_qaida

This guy definately ain't one of the "55%"....just a guess.

[DarkShadow]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_al_qaida

This guy definately ain't one of the "55%"....just a guess.

Maybe homeboy was interrogated by this guy:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6750266&page=1

[sansou]

Maybe homeboy was interrogated by this guy:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6750266&page=1

Hmmm...."muslim" women that voluntarily will drink cola & whiskey, and not to mention, are "ok" with being alone in a room with a man who is not their husband?

I smell impreachment of character!! (joking!)