• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

The Kochs are pro-gay marriage and pro-drugs.

They've always been more libertarian than anything else.

michaelskis said:
Preaching hate is no good either. Problem is the poor people don't get to hear from good candidates because the money does not back them. More so, a gay friend of mine claimed that the Koch brothers are pro-gay marriage and for legalization of drugs. I am not sure if I believe it. It is a shame that they have enough people on both sides to control most of the other issues. That is why things don't change in DC despite who is in office.
Click to expand...
 
michaelskis said:
Do you know if those numbers are only direct from the candidates or does that include PAC's too? I thought it would be higher...

I think that the breakdown of negative adds brings up an interesting point as well, it is not enough to sell the candidate, as much as it is to bash the other guy. Also how much of the adds are 100% truthful?
Click to expand...

I am not sure but I remember someone saying after the election that the 2012 Presidential Election was the first billion dollar election. I think that includes PAC's.
 
michaelskis said:
Do you know if those numbers are only direct from the candidates or does that include PAC's too? I thought it would be higher...

I think that the breakdown of negative adds brings up an interesting point as well, it is not enough to sell the candidate, as much as it is to bash the other guy. Also how much of the adds are 100% truthful?
Click to expand...

AIUI that graphic doesn't include dark money.
 
PennPlanner said:
The Kochs are pro-gay marriage and pro-drugs.

They've always been more libertarian than anything else.
Click to expand...

They publicly say they are pro gay marriage but they very heavily fund anti-gay marriage candidates and organizations. Since money is speech, that means they are anti gay marriage.
 
imaplanner said:
They publicly say they are pro gay marriage but they very heavily fund anti-gay marriage candidates and organizations. Since money is speech, that means they are anti gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Are those candidates running on that one issue and is that all that they care about (or the only way that they can help the Koch Bros?) I am not saying that they are good guys and I don't like that they buy elections, but I admit that I have voted for a pro-choice candidate before and even sent them $$... does that mean that I am pro-choice? Or does that mean that there was many other things about that candidate that I liked whereas there was a bunch about the other candidate that I didn't like?




Disclaimer... $$ was $10.
 
michaelskis said:
Are those candidates running on that one issue and is that all that they care about (or the only way that they can help the Koch Bros?) I am not saying that they are good guys and I don't like that they buy elections, but I admit that I have voted for a pro-choice candidate before and even sent them $$... does that mean that I am pro-choice? Or does that mean that there was many other things about that candidate that I liked whereas there was a bunch about the other candidate that I didn't like?




Disclaimer... $$ was $10.
Click to expand...


I get what you are saying. In 2012 KochPAC donated to Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum who were pretty heavy on the anti-gay agenda.

On a slightly different topic, do you feel like you are an outlier as a conservative who opposes unlimited money in politics? I ask because the right wing media, blogs and radio seem to all be rejoicing about the ruling- though in most cases they couch it in terms of a victory for free speech.
 
imaplanner said:
I get what you are saying. In 2012 KochPAC donated to Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum who were pretty heavy on the anti-gay agenda.

On a slightly different topic, do you feel like you are an outlier as a conservative who opposes unlimited money in politics? I ask because the right wing media, blogs and radio seem to all be rejoicing about the ruling- though in most cases they couch it in terms of a victory for free speech.
Click to expand...

Over the past several years, my viewpoints on politics have morphed into an area that is hard to classify. I also don't believe that we should have military actions in most of the places in the world and that we need to have a better domestic policy. I believe that there needs to be a cleaner guided road to citizenship in the US, but everyone needs to get in line. The sooner that you do, the sooner you get to be a US citizen.

Some years ago Thomas Friedman wrote abut how the world is Flat... but it is in a different way than he thought. It is no longer about the super powered computer users with the world wide web as their sounding board. Instead he who controls the money controls the media... and in todays society... the media is the biggest influence on people. That is one of the reasons that I don't watch TV or the news. I will research things and form my own opinions on them. I don't listen to talk radio, instead I get biographies on CD to use that time a bit more constructively.

There are elements of both parties that I agree with, and more so, there are elements of both parties that I don't agree with. I know that this country can be great again... but given the current part system where only those who are sponsored by the extremely wealthy get elected, on either side, we will not find the same opportunities for equality that we all desire. Only then will we be able to judge a man (or woman) on their merits and their character.

Free speech is the Koch Brothers or George Soros going on TV to express their viewpoint. Paying actors to read lines about a topic is advertising a commercial message. That is not free speech, that is manipulation and selling a product.
 
Who are you and what have you done with m'skis?!? :D:p Did you take the red pill???

First you give a positive review of Robert Reich's documentary on the wealth gap, and now you're identifying the critical issues with unconstrained money influence on politics?

You're clearly still fundamentally conservative, but I think you're quickly approaching "man without a country middle party" status. You're also one of the few conservatives that seem to have realized that the wealth gap & influence of money in politics go beyond right/left, GOP/Dem, religion, race & orientation.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
You're clearly still fundamentally conservative, but I think you're quickly approaching "man without a country middle party" status. You're also one of the few conservatives that seem to have realized that the wealth gap & influence of money in politics go beyond right/left, GOP/Dem, religion, race & orientation.
Click to expand...

Another indicator of the problems of the dying party. If only the Dems were competent, they could finish it off so we can get a decent opposition party or two or three.

Also could be an indicator of growing strife in society, but the P would be very low.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Who are you and what have you done with m'skis?!? :D:p Did you take the red pill???

First you give a positive review of Robert Reich's documentary on the wealth gap, and now you're identifying the critical issues with unconstrained money influence on politics?

You're clearly still fundamentally conservative, but I think you're quickly approaching "man without a country middle party" status. You're also one of the few conservatives that seem to have realized that the wealth gap & influence of money in politics go beyond right/left, GOP/Dem, religion, race & orientation.
Click to expand...

Just don't try to take my bible or my guns. ;)
 
So I read the McCutcheon opinion. It's here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf

John Roberts, writing for the majority, says that limiting corruption is a legitimate government interest, but that giving money to politicians in order to gain access and influence to them is not corruption and does not even have the appearance of corruption unless it is quid-pro-quo. This is found most specifically on pages 4 and 5. On page 8 he writes that it is not corruption that a politician may feel gratitude (an act accordingly?) to people who give him money, nor is it the appearance of corruption. It's very difficult for me to believe that anyone honestly thinks this sort of thing does not even give "rise to the appearance of coruption", but that it what the majority opinion says.

I was talking about this with someone else who mentioned this language is very similar to that in the Citizens United ruling, which I have not yet read.
 
imaplanner said:
So I read the McCutcheon opinion. It's here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf

John Roberts, writing for the majority, says that limiting corruption is a legitimate government interest, but that giving money to politicians in order to gain access and influence to them is not corruption and does not even have the appearance of corruption unless it is quid-pro-quo. This is found most specifically on pages 4 and 5. On page 8 he writes that it is not corruption that a politician may feel gratitude (an act accordingly?) to people who give him money, nor is it the appearance of corruption. It's very difficult for me to believe that anyone honestly thinks this sort of thing does not even give "rise to the appearance of coruption", but that it what the majority opinion says.

I was talking about this with someone else who mentioned this language is very similar to that in the Citizens United ruling, which I have not yet read.
Click to expand...

I'll take flawed logic for $1,000, Alex. :science:
 
imaplanner said:
So I read the McCutcheon opinion. It's here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf

John Roberts, writing for the majority, says that limiting corruption is a legitimate government interest, but that giving money to politicians in order to gain access and influence to them is not corruption and does not even have the appearance of corruption unless it is quid-pro-quo. This is found most specifically on pages 4 and 5. On page 8 he writes that it is not corruption that a politician may feel gratitude (an act accordingly?) to people who give him money, nor is it the appearance of corruption. It's very difficult for me to believe that anyone honestly thinks this sort of thing does not even give "rise to the appearance of coruption", but that it what the majority opinion says.

I was talking about this with someone else who mentioned this language is very similar to that in the Citizens United ruling, which I have not yet read.
Click to expand...

Wait a second.... "Giving Money to politicians in order to gain access and influence to them is not corruption and does not even have the appearance of corruption unless it is quid-pro-quo."

Not only does that sound like corruption, that also sounds a bit like a bribe. I question if there isn't outside forces that decided this vote for them.
 
michaelskis said:
Wait a second.... "Giving Money to politicians in order to gain access and influence to them is not corruption and does not even have the appearance of corruption unless it is quid-pro-quo."

Not only does that sound like corruption, that also sounds a bit like a bribe. I question if there isn't outside forces that decided this vote for them.
Click to expand...

I'd encourage you to read the decision. To me it's basically the court sayint corruption is not only not corruption but corruption is not the appearance of corruption. It basically says that corruption of political candidates is a first amendment right. Meanwhile, I refrain from so much as accepting a beer from a developer when I'm out on the town in order to prevent the appearance of corruption.

I really do think the supreme court just legalized corruption of politicians, and I don't think I'm being hyperbolic in saying that.
 
Hmmmm......

These are not the bribes/corrupt politicians you are looking for......(waves hand....):not:
 
imaplanner said:
I'd encourage you to read the decision. To me it's basically the court sayint corruption is not only not corruption but corruption is not the appearance of corruption. It basically says that corruption of political candidates is a first amendment right. Meanwhile, I refrain from so much as accepting a beer from a developer when I'm out on the town in order to prevent the appearance of corruption.

I really do think the supreme court just legalized corruption of politicians, and I don't think I'm being hyperbolic in saying that.
Click to expand...

We should look at the ruling on the bright side, or maybe we're just in the wrong job. Now we can accept "gifts" from developers since they are just trying to get access to influence. At the same time, maybe our job should be renamed politician and not staff. If you try to get access to staff influence it's corruption, if you try to get access to political influence it's okay.
 
Yay!

Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality.

Ha ha ha Believers, repent and understand economics! Overthrow or scare those bastards at the top so they are not such DICK's!

I am not even christian and I like this guy. Attacked american conservatives at their core. :D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...7ffe4e-56b6-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

Also many words (50,000) mostly on reforms to the church.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Yay!

Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality.

Ha ha ha Believers, repent and understand economics! Overthrow or scare those bastards at the top so they are not such DICK's!

I am not even christian and I like this guy. Attacked american conservatives at their core. :D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...7ffe4e-56b6-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

Also many words (50,000) mostly on reforms to the church.
Click to expand...

I too like this pope, and in many ways I agree with this statement too. I think that the problem is bigger than just the trickle down economics, but the whole tax structure, and in someways the materialistic culture in the US compared with the rest of the world. The problem is that Wall Street, DC, and CEO funded PAC's will not let real change happen until we as a society demand it with our spending habits and our voting habits. And this goes for both parties...
 
According to an interview with the moderator that I listened to this morning, Butch Otter (the governor) made a promise to that Harley Brown guy that all candidates would be invited to participate in any debate that he (Otter) would be in after an interaction that the two had when Brown was refused the opportunity to debate during a prior campaign. I'm sure the fact that Otter could surround himself with crazies while coming off as the normal one and also therefore denying his serious opponent more debate time had nothing to do with his requiring them to be in the debate. ;)
 
WSU MUP Student said:
According to an interview with the moderator that I listened to this morning, Butch Otter (the governor) made a promise to that Harley Brown guy that all candidates would be invited to participate in any debate that he (Otter) would be in after an interaction that the two had when Brown was refused the opportunity to debate during a prior campaign. I'm sure the fact that Otter could surround himself with crazies while coming off as the normal one and also therefore denying his serious opponent more debate time had nothing to do with his requiring them to be in the debate. ;)
Click to expand...

This just screams SNL skit.
 
Here is collection of clips of the good (funny) parts. This is just a train wreck from start to end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPwW8nBVc0g

If you watch the full debate, the Senior has the same mannerisms as Dan Aykroyd. Look at the eyes... (I am sorry I can't stop laughing)
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
I think it crazy brilliant on his part. Drown out your only legitmate competitor and appear to be the only sane one in the room.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine is a "political consultant" that manages state-level campaigns. He was telling me about Idaho and how that campaign manager was absolutely brilliant in how they did that.
 
Now that the whole office is done laughing, we'll all go watch it some more when we're feeling down.
 
michaelskis said:
Here is collection of clips of the good (funny) parts. This is just a train wreck from start to end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPwW8nBVc0g

If you watch the full debate, the Senior has the same mannerisms as Dan Aykroyd. Look at the eyes... (I am sorry I can't stop laughing)
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link. I like the biker guy. He has charisma. And the old guy really stands for something. He has principles. Honestly after hearing about this debate I felt it wasn't as crazy as it's been made out to be. I mean, yeah it's crazy, but it's not too far off from a lot of the opinions I hear in my neck of the woods from people who threaten every so often to run for local office. I guess the cray cray is that this is for the nomination for head honcho of the whole state,
 
michaelskis said:
WTF. Please tell me this is a joke.... :-c


Iowa Governor's Debate
Click to expand...


IDAHO NOT IOWA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sheesh things are bad enough with Joni Ernst we don't need credit for this too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh9TGDRBVk4
 
After seeing these youtube debates & ads, you have to wonder how they decided to deflect your attention.......oh yeah, Hillary has brain damage :r:
 
Should we add in today's story about the Oregon stalking scandal? :-$
Apparently the lady can't get enough of her ex boyfriend.
 
Eric Shinseki and Jay Carney are both now leaving. This is just two in a list of people who have resigned as part of this administration... yet the President refuses to take responsibility for anything.
 
michaelskis said:
Eric Shinseki and Jay Carney are both now leaving. This is just two in a list of people who have resigned as part of this administration... yet the President refuses to take responsibility for anything.
Click to expand...

Yes that is bating, and most likely trolling, but I will bite slightly...

"Refuses to take responsibility for anything" means what? That the VA was completely an Obama creation? That all the problems in the VA were only because of Obama? That if only a republican president were in place it wouldn't be like that?

Or Benghazi? Because that HUGE cover up is all Obama? Err I mean Clinton, err, who is at fault again for it? I forget the Fox News talking point.

I actually concur with the idea that the President should take more responsibility over the trouble in his administration, but the idea that he is directly responsible, or at fault is weak in my mind. Shinseki probably had to go no matter what. It was just too much trouble that has been found. Supporting him did no one any favors. In Washington it isn't what you did or didn't do, its theatrics. You have to fire someone when bad things happen, even if they weren't that persons fault.... SOMEONE has to be fired for all bad things.

Personally, I think the polls are beginning to give the D's life again. Obamacare isn't polling very well going into the summer, and Benghazi is a joke. The R's should probably start looking to find what they stand for quickly, or we are going to see a split legislature that is going to get nothing done for another year.... :r:
 
Hink said:
Yes that is bating, and most likely trolling, but I will bite slightly...

"Refuses to take responsibility for anything" means what? That the VA was completely an Obama creation? That all the problems in the VA were only because of Obama? That if only a republican president were in place it wouldn't be like that?

Or Benghazi? Because that HUGE cover up is all Obama? Err I mean Clinton, err, who is at fault again for it? I forget the Fox News talking point.

I actually concur with the idea that the President should take more responsibility over the trouble in his administration, but the idea that he is directly responsible, or at fault is weak in my mind. Shinseki probably had to go no matter what. It was just too much trouble that has been found. Supporting him did no one any favors. In Washington it isn't what you did or didn't do, its theatrics. You have to fire someone when bad things happen, even if they weren't that persons fault.... SOMEONE has to be fired for all bad things.

Personally, I think the polls are beginning to give the D's life again. Obamacare isn't polling very well going into the summer, and Benghazi is a joke. The R's should probably start looking to find what they stand for quickly, or we are going to see a split legislature that is going to get nothing done for another year.... :r:
Click to expand...


The VA problem did start under Bush. Obama's lack of attention only made the situation worse. Bengazi is a both Obama and Clinton issue. Obama's lack of caring and Clinton's attempt to cover it up.

On a related note, there is discussion that the VA Hospital in Iron Mountain Michigan put up a curtain to cover any Christian symbols in the hospital's chapel. HERE is the letter to the editor in the local news paper. It has sense been confirmed by several sources and a call to a friend of mine who lives there. She said that it is all over town and people are outraged because there is discussion about taking the chapel out of the hospital all together. I posted it in FB yesterday and another Cyburbian who has experience with these chapels said that he found them to be more inclusionary as they sometimes also had the Star of David and a prayer mat right next to the alters. I think that this include all approach is wonderful and I think that would be an acceptable use of tax dollars.

Anti-religous people need to stop their incessant whining and deal with it. If they don't find the chapel to be appropriate, stay out of it.
 
There was a guy in my MPA program that did his thesis on public healthcare management in the VA (he worked there)... it was only a matter of time before a story like this broke. IMO, one of the biggest problems is that you've got generals applying military-style leadership/mgmt at VA hospitals instead of actual public healthcare administrators. I had another friend that worked at a VA hospital in San Antonio that described it as "one giant sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen" and "a complete administrative clusterf***."
 
michaelskis said:
The VA problem did start under Bush. Obama's lack of attention only made the situation worse. Bengazi is a both Obama and Clinton issue. .
Click to expand...

The VA problem started many presidents before Bush and the current president's "lack of attention" is not the issue either. This is not a recently problem that just arose in the last few years. God its been going on for decades - WW1 vets had to sue the federal govt. for benefits and medical attention. The media overload is the recent 'problem' which could turn into a positive in the long run. Please dive deep into history for details. I not trolling, nor do I expect a response. Just stating the fact of the matter.

I do wish all of our patriotic drum beating of recent time for our veterans would do something more meaningful like improving the VA and the hospitals. For example, why does the MLB have to have camo on the baseball uniforms? It's not to 'honor' the vets. It's to make $$$ on merchandising sales. Can we hold off on building say 2 of the new F35 fighters and send those $300 million to the VA (not that money fixes the problems, but it will be a start)?
 
Planit said:
I do wish all of our patriotic drum beating of recent time for our veterans would do something more meaningful like improving the VA and the hospitals. For example, why does the MLB have to have camo on the baseball uniforms? It's not to 'honor' the vets. It's to make $$$ on merchandising sales. Can we hold off on building say 2 of the new F35 fighters and send those $300 million to the VA (not that money fixes the problems, but it will be a start)?
Click to expand...

Hear, hear.

There is way too much jingoism and false patriotism in this country while real efforts to help veterans are few and far between. I used to have a bumper sticker that I had made up on one of my Jeeps that read, "Bandwagon Patriot - Loving America Since 9/11/01!" I wish I could find the other copy of it that I stuck between the pages of a book and set aside somewhere because it's still applicable.

As has been stated, the problems with the VA started long before Shinseki. The VA has been woefully overwhelmed and understaffed (at least) since troops began rotating back from Vietnam. Shinseki actually has done some great things like covering documented cases of PTSD for servicemembers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan on their first request and going with the scientific evidence that exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam is indeed responsible for diabetes, certain types of cancers, and other illnesses. Unfortunately, by agreeing to pay out these claims, he also helped exacerbate the backlog of claims. However, given a bit more time, the backlog from these particular claims should work itself out relatively quickly, of course that doesn't much help the backlog for more complicated claims and it doesn't excuse individuals of covering up long waits in order to make their particular VA center look good.

Full disclosure: Before my current job, I worked for the State Department of Military Affairs primarily assisting veterans with financial hardships and navigating that side of the VA and I shared an office with county veterans reps who worked helping vets file medical claims and working through that whole cluster of red tape. This was back in 2005 and 2006. I never recall anybody in the office lamenting for the early days of the Bush administration or the good ole days of Clinton, HW, Reagan, Carter...
 
Planit said:
The VA problem started many presidents before Bush and the current president's "lack of attention" is not the issue either. This is not a recently problem that just arose in the last few years. God its been going on for decades - WW1 vets had to sue the federal govt. for benefits and medical attention. The media overload is the recent 'problem' which could turn into a positive in the long run. Please dive deep into history for details. I not trolling, nor do I expect a response. Just stating the fact of the matter.

I do wish all of our patriotic drum beating of recent time for our veterans would do something more meaningful like improving the VA and the hospitals. For example, why does the MLB have to have camo on the baseball uniforms? It's not to 'honor' the vets. It's to make $$$ on merchandising sales. Can we hold off on building say 2 of the new F35 fighters and send those $300 million to the VA (not that money fixes the problems, but it will be a start)?
Click to expand...

I thought it was better during the administration of Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton?

As for everything you said in terms of sports teams and spending, I agree that we have our priorities messed up. More so we should have less vets because we should not be in most of the places that we are in. I respect them for their service and think that we should honor them by taking care of them and not sending troops into unnecessary battles in the future.
 
Prisoner Trade

By now, many of you know that we traded a US solder who has been detained by the Taliban for the past 5 years, with 5 of the most wanted Taliban solders. There are several parts of this that make me feel a bit uneasy. First of all, the "we do not negotiate with terrorists" seems to have gone out the window despite what TIME says. Will this open the door for capture and detain of American's knowing that they can negotiate with the US over the release of their people. Second, why is it that the Taliban held him captive for 5 years when they seem to execute more of the other people. More so, how was he captured? Did he walk away from the military to help the Taliban? (CNN Story about that) Why did his father post pro-Taliban comments on Twitter? Finally, 5 for 1? Why not 1 for 1? Why these five? They seem to be some major level players in the Taliban army, so I am confused on that one.
 
Planit said:
The VA problem started many presidents before Bush and the current president's "lack of attention" is not the issue either. This is not a recently problem that just arose in the last few years. God its been going on for decades - WW1 vets had to sue the federal govt. for benefits and medical attention. The media overload is the recent 'problem' which could turn into a positive in the long run. Please dive deep into history for details. I not trolling, nor do I expect a response. Just stating the fact of the matter.

I do wish all of our patriotic drum beating of recent time for our veterans would do something more meaningful like improving the VA and the hospitals. For example, why does the MLB have to have camo on the baseball uniforms? It's not to 'honor' the vets. It's to make $$$ on merchandising sales. Can we hold off on building say 2 of the new F35 fighters and send those $300 million to the VA (not that money fixes the problems, but it will be a start)?
Click to expand...

I hate to keep mentioning the obvious, but in the USA (YEW.ESS.EH! YEW. ESS. EH! YEWESSEHYEWESSEH!!!) if we turn to traditional media for information, only the comedians are explaining things so the public can understand.

Jon Stewart covered these points from planit excellentamente. Do watch.
 
giff57 said:
IDAHO NOT IOWA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sheesh things are bad enough with Joni Ernst we don't need credit for this too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh9TGDRBVk4
Click to expand...

Exactly. You don't breed a lot of Wild West crazy and then get mislabeled as a corn-fed Midwestern state.
 
michaelskis said:
By now, many of you know that we traded a US solder who has been detained by the Taliban for the past 5 years, with 5 of the most wanted Taliban solders. There are several parts of this that make me feel a bit uneasy. First of all, the "we do not negotiate with terrorists" seems to have gone out the window despite what TIME says. Will this open the door for capture and detain of American's knowing that they can negotiate with the US over the release of their people. Second, why is it that the Taliban held him captive for 5 years when they seem to execute more of the other people. More so, how was he captured? Did he walk away from the military to help the Taliban? (CNN Story about that) Why did his father post pro-Taliban comments on Twitter? Finally, 5 for 1? Why not 1 for 1? Why these five? They seem to be some major level players in the Taliban army, so I am confused on that one.
Click to expand...

Since we are pulling out of afganistan and ending the war I think we have to start returning them? In any case, I know it's not the first time we have released taliban people from gitmo. I believe this is the first time we traded though because previously we had released the without getting anything in return.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...correct-500-guantanamo-detainees-were-releas/

I do know that some people are really upset. I just got back from my barber and while i was getting trimmed they were all talking about how this means obama is a traitor and somebody needs to assasinate him. That kind of talk really creeps me out.
 
imaplanner said:
Since we are pulling out of afganistan and ending the war I think we have to start returning them? In any case, I know it's not the first time we have released taliban people from gitmo. I believe this is the first time we traded though because previously we had released the without getting anything in return.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...correct-500-guantanamo-detainees-were-releas/

I do know that some people are really upset. I just got back from my barber and while i was getting trimmed they were all talking about how this means obama is a traitor and somebody needs to assasinate him. That kind of talk really creeps me out.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Obama is a traitor. Trader maybe, but not a traitor. I pray that no harm comes to the President. Even if I disagree with is politics, he is still a husband, father, and a the President who in my eyes, has not done anything to require such action.

In terms of us pulling out of Afghanistan, if we have any Afghani Military, that is one thing, but these are Taliban/ Al Qaeda terrorists. Last I checked, we were still at war with them. I don't question the concept of releasing prisoners once the war is over, but it's not.

Can you honestly tell me that you don't think that the five released hostages will rearm themselves, join back up with the Taliban and attack again?
 
Back
Top