Lucky...

They committed an act of war against the United States so they are tried in a civil court? Bringing any detainees to the United States is not a good idea. The ACLU would gladly defend these thugs with the hope they would be allowed to stay. Circus or dog and pony show, and some terrrorist incident happens, this administration is done. So, you're agreeing with me....right? As in, this is, so far, the single dumbest-idiotic-retarded idea to come from the White House...right? Yes, I agree 100%. Sadly, it looks like a done deal. Hope this doesn't literally blow up in their faces. This shit isn't good for the country. Maybe BHO will invite his bedtime buddies: Chavez and Castro to view democracy in action. Read the news much? - Nobel Peace Prize for just getting elected and hoping we have a better direction. - GPI from 97/140 to 83/140 http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings.php - World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1 http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/world-citizens-prefer-obama-mccain-nearly-4to1.aspx I understand the conservative talking point is to blow people up who disagree, but so was Hilter's. We are moving in the right direction. They really meant to give the Nobel to teh American people, but they can't do that, to my understanding.

With the last administration and it's endless criminal acts I would think you might fear the slippery slope, so ensuring foreign enemies due process will keep ours inline. I don't think Obama's reelection hinges upon the handling of these guys. As for Done, the placement of GWB being approx 6th worst of all time denotes he was done a long time ago, Obama's place in history at this piont is certainly > 50%, likely top 10. Reagan was top 5 I think I recall until lately as the debt becomes an issue, now he's 12 and falling. Clinton and GHWB came from low 20's to mid-high teens last I looked. The debt is going to be the 'decided' when it comes to ranking former presidents, fascist Ronnie will freefall once people see what he's done.

Well, that depends upon a lot of things. Even with Miranda himself the illegally obtained evidence was suppressed, yet he was retried and still convicted, so suppression of evidence does not equal an automatic dismissal or win at new trial. Furthermore, the evidence can still be used against a defendant if he testifies unless it was coerced. Mere failing to mirandize will suppress,bit won't give permission for the Def to lie. So the Def can demand a lot of things, but we'll see what happens and how it turns out. If Dumb shit didn't open GITMO and decide civil rights to some, dump the issue off to the next president, then this could have been resolved years ago. And your solution is to leave them at GITMO forever? Not only is that expensive, it defies our constitution and many worldwide rules of war. GITMO is not a photo op, it's just one of the messes inherited from the previous mess.

Hey! What do you think you're doing introducing facts into the discussion? I can't wait to see Lucky's response to those figures. I'm pretty sure he'll find some way to disallow your post. Sure, joke around, acquiescence noted. If you had a response to data or other evidence you would make it - you don't so you screw around - loud and clear.

Answer what? I'll clean up the typos: You're absolutely right, Regan actually underspent and GHWB / Clinton cutting the military.....treasonous bastards. We need to start by quadrupling the current military and then see where we are. Ya never know where the commies are hiding. Oh wait, we manufactured a new axis of evel; the Arabs/Palestine. Right, as long as we have/manufacture an enemy then we'll have a reason to piss our future away on delluded paranoia. So address it. It's sarcasm, it's saying that overpending wasn't needed. Debt is good under conservatives; make a point of it.

Quit skating, tell me all of the issue that happened in the 70's requiring FR to fuck everything up in the 80 via gross spending and tax cutting. Here: C4C was 3 billion in 2009 dollars, nothing vompared to his military spending then and Reagan's economy was stagnant, so he contracted the money supply and cut taxes - what a brilliant plan - shot the unemp from a stable 8 to almost 11%. Obama with C4C, Reagan with the military spending and taxx cuts. You drew a comparison so did I. I don't follow this, clarify. Reagan didn't receive a 2009 economy. That is insane if you try to compare the two. Reagan spent unnecc on a military buildup due to his dellusion that the commies were coming. Obama is trying not to let an economy that is on the brink of destruction slip into the GD by stimulus spending - is that dishonorable, wrong, errant - tax cuts my friends???? And then he replacd 50% for 38%. Replaced 38% for 28% and there we were, poor, honorable GHWB had a pile of garbage he had to raise taxes for to escape, which cost him 1992. As for the only difference being taxes. That is incorrect on so many fronts: - Reagan did not receive a 2009 econmy, debt mess, deficit mess. Just a stagnant economy and high int rates. Unemp was bad but stable - I think 8%ish. The wprld was mostly at peace; Carter resolved the Iranian hostages issue as Reagan took office; no one hated us and Russia was dumb enough to take the batton of the M.E., so all was well here. - Obama hasn't touched taxes yet, so how is there a comparison? There isn't. I laugh when I see conservatives try to compare what Reagan received to what Obama received. Listen, just go to the GD and multipy by at least .50 and that's what we have now. The subsequent recessions in the early 80's, 90's were child's play compared to this. And our approach is quite different too, we used to tax our way out, now we deficit spend - can't anger our poor-baby rich people. Teachers aren't part of infrastructure? The 4th most dominant product: car manufaturing isn't part of the infrastructure. Not to mention the energy appropriations Obama has made? He has done a lot to buld infrastructure, conservatives just ignore the mess their guy gave our guy; what else can tey argue?

Yea but he never held office as a Dem, just a Repub which is where he did all of his damage, that is, unless you like major deficits and drowning debt.

You're absolutely right, Regan actually underspent and GHWB / Clinton cutting the military.....treasonous bastards. We need to start by quadrupling the current military and then see where we are. Ya nevr know where the commies are hiding. Oh wait, we manufactured a new axis of eveil; the Arabs/Palestine. Right, as long as we have'manufacture an enemy then we'll have a reason to piss our future away on delluded parahoia. Wow Ever hear the pot/kettle analogy? All you do is not respond in your response? And then of course point out a typo where I hit the 'h' ratherthan the 'n' - a true typo. as they're adjacent on the keyboard. Did I hammer you when you made a much more grave error of claiming Pearl Harbor was bombed on 1945 rather than 1945; not a typographical error, as the keys are not adjacent? But you feel compelled to demonstrate a simple grave error and why? You don't have an answer to my issues so you misdirect. I don't have to do that, which is why I didn't drag you thru teh mud over saying Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1945. You're absolutely right, Regan actually underspent and GHWB / Clinton cutting the military.....treasonous bastards. We need to start by quadrupling the current military and then see where we are. Ya nevr know where the commies are hiding. Oh wait, we manufactured a new axis of eveil; the Arabs/Palestine. Right, as long as we have'manufacture an enemy then we'll have a reason to piss our future away on delluded parahoia. Answer it.

I was wrong to say this. My apologies to Lucky and the community as a whole. No prob bud, I wasn't trying to hit any nerves.

But to show pics of a crowd from a previous meet is not the norm. Esp how harsh Hannity is with Dems being dishonest. He isn't teh RW, most RWers just love him.

Right. Since we know that's wrong we'll just ignore your previous assertion. MSM to the Dems is not Hannoty to t he R's - be real.

Like the 'honesty' of the MSM estimating 60-70k at the 9/12 rally, for example? Like MSNBC's "Morning Meeting" today showing fake photos of Palin? I notice you're not calling THEM out... I wonder why. Post evidence of your point. Oh wait, this is Mike, he says to look up his assertions or they're assumed judicial notice. Also, MSM isn't an arm of teh Dem Party, Hannity is an unoffocial arm of the RW.

You're absolutely right, Regan actually underspent and GHWB / Clinton cutting the military.....treasonous bastards. We need to start by quadrupling the current military and then see where we are. Ya nevr know where the commies are hiding. Oh wait, we manufactured a new axis of eveil; the Arabs/Palestine. Right, as long as we have'manufacture an enemy then we'll have a reason to piss our future away on delluded parahoia.

The USSR was a threat viable enough to trash our economy and claim victory to their downfall? Really, China is laughing that while teh US and USSR's heads of state were so dumb as to fight each other in a Cold War that would never come to fruition, then as they fall one by one China is there building their manufacturing base waiting for the last one to fall, basically buying us as we do. And you're still there applauding Reagan for leading us down that path under the guise of a Russia that was on the verge of attacking when any competent person in 1981 in Reagan's postion would know there was nothing that would ever happen and even if it in some bizzare way did, we had a competent military and a massive nuclear arsenal; THERE WAS NO REASONABLE NEED TO OVERBUILD OUR MILITARY IN THE 80'S. The number is up for consideration, but yes, that was 1/2 of it, either deficit spend or raise taxes is actually what I said - thx for 1/2 quoting me for your convenience. OK, what was the malaise of the 70's? I love hopw you throw out some assertion w/o backing it. What issues? What problems rquird fascist Ronnie to pump the military, cut taxes incredibly and triple the debt? Please, name them and then tie in how FR had to apply his policies to fix them. Don't just say, OPEC, IRANIAN HOSTAGES, Etc. I mean really tell me me what happened in the 70's to create the mess that you say needed a massive military and pay cuts and how it worked out. I think he lost 2 trillion by my math, not sure tho, could you help me? Reagan also made billions for the rich, he is their martyr for sure. Well, that's your question. Did Reagan put us in the hole financially based upon an imagined threat? Was the USSR really a threat to us in the 80's? Sho me. We were feeding them, how were tehy about to atatck us when no one would win, esp since the fact you keep dodging; they were in a long war in AFG so how could they focus on us if they wanted to? The Cold War could have been resolved by intelligent people w/o a build-up. Nah, that may have been an unintended byproduct, but Reagan was heel-bent on boosting teh militiary, he had no eye problem there. C4C was 3 billion in 2009 dollars, nothing vompared to his military spending then and Reagan's economy was stagnant, so he contracted the money supply and cut taxes - what a brilliant plan - shot the unemp from a stable 8 to almost 11%. Expound. ' That's an understatement; don't forget the tax cuts, my friends. Really? He kept teachers working, kept the auto industry working and helped to keep the banking industry afloat; that's not infrastructure?

You have to use reasonable forseeability. Obviously by the end, Reagan was wrong. But to put ourselves back in 1981, let's look at what the circumstances were. - We were trading with them - The USSR was stretched into AFG with a lot of resources stuck there - a long war with the US would be foolish - Much of the world was against them for being in AFG, so the world would likely back us if a war broke between the US and USSR. - Russia was making no threats whatsoever. OK, so with that set of objective criteria, tell me how the USSR was such a threat AT ALL, but esp one that we had to hawk our future over. You're welcome to your opinion as to whether Reagan did a great job pumping the military to ridiculous proportion, cutting taxes all teh while and tripling the debt. Some people think malaria is cool, so who am I to say you're wrong? I agree - caught sleeping. So how, after FDR inherited a total mess, did FDR let the military degrade? Was it degrade when he took office? Where was it in Dec, 1941 regard to 1933? Had it degraded. I'd like to see support for your assertion. Please, no RW rag sites. Maybe they had other places to go. Do research, tell me what they did just after Dec 7, 1941. It was their strategy to use their resources where tehy saw fit, no luck but design. Yep, but as I said, they had bigger fish to fry to take other places first. Pearl Harbor wsn't their immediate goal and frankly it was too far east at that time. They wanted to stun us so they could do something else; what was that? Please, outline the luck. 1) What time period did you refer to? 2) We were ramping up for Europe in 1940, Pearl Harbor was later Again, look at the list of WHAT WE DID KNOW IN 1981 and make that claim. - We were trading with them - The USSR was stretched into AFG with a lot of resources stuck there - a long war with the US would be foolish - Much of the world was against them for being in AFG, so the world would likely back us if a war broke between the US and USSR. - Russia was making no threats whatsoever. Oh, about fascist Ronnie being a war coward. Yea, how can you repsond and answer questions like how FR was able to enlist in the guard/reserve and be ok, yet when wartime kicked off all of the sudden he has an eye problem? Really, what can ya say?

Sounds good to me, I'll start one.

You have to use reasonable forseeability. Obviously by the end, Reagan was wrong. But to put ourselves back in 1981, let's look at what the circumstances were. - We were trading with them - The USSR was stretched into AFG with a lot of resources stuck there - a long war with the US would be foolish - Much of the world was against them for being in AFG, so the world would likely back us if a war broke between the US and USSR. - Russia was making no threats whatsoever. OK, so with that set of objective criteria, tell me how the USSR was such a threat AT ALL, but esp one that we had to hawk our future over. You're welcome to your opinion as to whether Reagan did a great job pumping the military to ridiculous proportion, cutting taxes all teh while and tripling the debt. Some people think malaria is cool, so who am I to say you're wrong? I agree - caught sleeping. So how, after FDR inherited a total mess, did FDR let the military degrade? Was it degrade when he took office? Where was it in Dec, 1941 regard to 1933? Had it degraded. I'd like to see support for your assertion. Please, no RW rag sites. Maybe they had other places to go. Do research, tell me what they did just after Dec 7, 1941. It was their strategy to use their resources where tehy saw fit, no luck but design. Yep, but as I said, they had bigger fish to fry to take other places first. Pearl Harbor wsn't their immediate goal and frankly it was too far east at that time. They wanted to stun us so they could do something else; what was that? Please, outline the luck. 1) What time period did you refer to? 2) We were ramping up for Europe in 1940, Pearl Harbor was later Again, look at the list of WHAT WE DID KNOW IN 1981 and make that claim. - We were trading with them - The USSR was stretched into AFG with a lot of resources stuck there - a long war with the US would be foolish - Much of the world was against them for being in AFG, so the world would likely back us if a war broke between the US and USSR. - Russia was making no threats whatsoever. Oh, about fascist Ronnie being a war coward. Yea, how can you repsond and answer questions like how FR was able to enlist in the guard/reserve and be ok, yet when wartime kicked off all of the sudden he has an eye problem? Really, what can ya say?

Profile is for fun - same as not having any info in there. Not all, I psot in incidents sometimes. Because I reply to several in a row to me. Actually no. I like constructuve argument with data or other relevant evidene to find truths. I'm blue collar - no typy from worky. MORE PA'S FROM YOUR SIDE, WHY? It's called dissent, the things you pretend to stand for via harsh conservatism, yet denouce when it disgrees with you. Shall we call it selective support for dissent?

Right, he thinks it's cute to call the other side a bunch of liars, show intentionally deceptive pics and then smirk and you give a condescending apology. And people like these thugs?

http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/hannitys-response-we-screwed-10032 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienza/sean-hannitys-act-of-neo_b_355385.html Hannity used old footage of a previous rally with greater attendance to show the support of a recent rally. Supposed error: right. Just shows the dishonesty of the radical right.

Oh, that bill sponsored by 3 Republicans? Gramm, Leach, Bliley. The real killer were the low int rates, w/o them it couldn't happen. Tax cuts, my friends were his fault.

Oh, was someone else a credible threat? We now spend 8 times that of #2 China (not incl Iraq spending), how would cutting that in half not be prepared? See, the danger now is being too prepared and ruining our country fiscally. There's a happy middle and we surely have missed it by far; why do you insist we ruin our country fiscally under the guise of, 'they're out to get us?' Ok, so was it that we weren't built up enough or we were, but they caught us sleeping? Well we had the entire world to travel unlike most countries that focused on one theatre or the other. In 1940 we started moving ships to the European theatre, so we had the disadvantage of thining ourselves unlike many countries. Again, cut all social programs, quadruple deficit spending to overbuild the military so we'll win. Of course that is a recipe for losing. You have to have a reasonable military and rely on the world community to pull together collectively. Oh, tell me, where did we get lucky? That's an insult to all the soldiers crashing beaches everywhere giving up > 400K lives. Was D-Day luck? I thought it was exponential sacrifice. Yes, lived thru it like GWB --> A COWARD WHO GOT A WAIVER TO AVOID. You see, Reagan had an eye problem and couldn't go. He enlisted in the guard or reserve in 37, but then when he was called in 42 he found a waiver for his eyesight and stayed in Cali doing admin BS and then to Hollywood to make training movies. Reagan is a disgrace to real men everywhere. If we want to talk presidents who are storied in military duty we have to GHWB and Eisenhower, the rest have not had a real atatchment to the military in the aspect we are talking. As for Reagan's delluded vision of Commies in his head, after the BOP in 1960 the real hostility was over and it turned petty. We boycotted the 1980 Olympics because the USSR invavded AFG. As an aside it turns out they were right. But at this point US / USSR relations were relegated to Olympics and top gun-type movies. I think I recall Iron Eagle or some anti-commie movie too. Point is, we had reduced our mutual hate to simple slander and no talk of war was present, just Reagan's delluded insanity and living in the past. The end verifies that truth.

Uh huh...I understand... sure yeah...it's so much more entertaining when suffering, sacrifice, and death have a cool soundtrack. Repeat: Fuck that shit. And edit... Why should I relax because you're an insensitive asshat? Maybe you should "relax" I didn't mean it that way. A friend at work lost his son in the Memorial Day Massacre. He is a war vet and both his sons were over there, one died. I am a vet (not wartime) and I fully back the soldiers, I want them to have free educations waiting and all necc medical attention for physical/mental issues. The main reason I said I liked the vid I posted was mainly the music. The OP had traditional music and that, to me, brings too much politics into it. Rather contemporary music that many of these guys who are out there in the field listen to. To me it brings a reality to it, but that's because I'm wired to reject a lot off traditional American music, as I tie different connotations to it. If there were people who listen to rap and they dubbed that in, it would probably bring more reality to it. That's all I'm saying.

I didn't see Republican ideology up there

Ok, so restate your assertion with your revised dates. OK, determine that it was reasonable to believe in 1981 that the USSR was able and willing to attack us. I don't think they had teh desire and if they did, did they have a lethal enough military to warrant us throwing it all at the military? You know, GWB said one thing, he said he was a war president; I think there was a certain bravdo that went with that. Perhaps Reagan had that same secret desire. Amazing at how the presidents who have the leat war in their personal history also have the most desire to be in another one. Roosevelt wasn't prepared for Pearl Harbor? Was there intel available to forsee that? It sounds as tho he was prepared in that there were enough battle forces there, it's just that no on eknew it was comming. So militarily as far as machines, the FDR military was ready. Perhaps lax intel and/or local command. Did they have watches (radar or eyeball)for incomming acft back then? Reagan was waaaaay overprepared and that cost us and it still does today. Making a bold assumption that the USSR wanted to attack when there was no evidence of that. Not to mention, being spread over in AFG wasn't a good startegy if they wanted to attack, as they would need all teh resource they could get to come after us. Show me.