1up+ for MSM

hmm in retrospect w/ MTV I guess that would actually be two 1ups for MSM...
ah well

Also can someone name a country for me that has more people in it's prison system than The United States of America? I think I recall reading something like "the land of the free" having 5% of the world population but yet 25% of the worlds prisoners

now I'm really out

holy fucking shit i always knew Obama was an obvious fake to continue the same job but i never thought he would do it to this extent.

oh noes he wants to keep terrorists in jail!!!
Yea this is questionable but the news obviously blowing it way out of proportion.

really? blowing it out of propotion? how so SfydjkLm?

in reality of what I see, and correct me if I'm wrong, if anything that the overall main stream cable news networks are doing on this speech that Obama gave it would be almost 100% total praising and stroking of our President for this delivering speech.
Afaik this is the only clip on the main stream news networks that actually opposes this obviously extreme and radical creation/implementation of a new....as Obama says "appropriate legal regime" and brings any light on it.
maybe I should go check fox bahaha

do you not see how preemptive war laws or now even preemptive crime laws can have serious wrong and damaging repercussions and is government totally overboard and people allowing this step to happen creates the chance of something horrific happening yet again?

I mean to me that should be totally obvious to everyone, but yet I guess strangely for some reason this is not the case as our government continues to head more and more in this direction.
I hate this but I have to ask, is it just because Obama delivered this speech that ppl feel it must be ok and good? It's really the only thing I can come up with

first you put put the laws in place against extremists who could become terrorists, then you start profiling foreigners we are at war with based on "terror." Then we get the new legal system efficient, getting the crooks and crannies out as well as people accustomed to it as an everday natural occurrence.
Then the powers that be can implement it upon it's own citizens, and who or what can stop them?
just hypothetical of course..but take a good look at homeland security
i.e. let's say people who firmly oppose any government involvement in the choice of abortion becomes deemed an extremist...
Now any who speak out for pro choice deem themselves extremist, and therefor the powers that be have them detained, "to insure they do not do some radical terrorist action against our nation"

oh yea, this government system we currently have should totally be implemented and evolved into a worldwide government

I did not read the language of his speech to be indicative of a preemptive detainment strategy in any way whatsoever, and I find Maddow's report to be way off base. In fact, so far off base that I suspect her show had nothing better to report on, and in an attempt to appear non-liberal and unbiased, simply took an opportunity to flame Obama so they can say "see! we're fair! we just coddle to one side ignoring arguments to the contrary!" Olbermann attacked Obama not too long ago also, and then the very next day was all buddy buddy with him in his reporting. This news story has about as much merit as Hannity or Beck doing an investigative piece of Bush or Palin for that matter. We all know when they're not talking about the government creating a new world order and taking over your lives that they're sucking each others ball sacks at a Motel 6.

While on one hand Newb you are definitely correct about MSM being in bed together and nothing more than basically a bunch of whores... in your other hand, you, for some reason, are totally missing something

I mean you say,

"I did not read the language of his speech to be indicative of a preemptive detainment strategy in any way whatsoever"

In no way whatsoever eh? ok... . . + Show Spoiler +

Here, let me quote your boy verbatim when he finally talks about the last of the 5 categories:


"We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified."

I just dont get it, I agree with every thing he said. Terrorism is indeed a tricky strategy to combat. We want to be fair and act as a guiding light for the rest of the world that we would never hold an innocent man. At the same time you have somebody who sure as hell looks comitted to attacking our country but we dont actually have any hard evidence, like planting a bomb, on them yet. So what do we do? This is where I think your bias against liberals goes askew. Most democrats and liberals alike are happy to lay the smack down on would be and proven terrorists. Basically, the old system of detainment under the bush administration was just too damn loose. Arrest some guy in the desert, detain him forever no questions asked. Cmon, we can do better than that. I feel confident our new administration will invoke a system of prosecution against suspected terrorists that we will all be satisfied with. It wont be this free for all nonsense that has been going on, but it will be enough that we can still stand proud when addressing other nations that we are just, we have honor, and we are not to be fucked with. Whats been revealed to date has just been embarrassing.

sigh
I just don't get it either...
your gaps are...almost overwhelming

what bias against liberals do I have that you are talking about?
fyi Maddow IS a liberal
how many times am I going to have to say it? in fact u know what I'm not gonna say this time

Maybe if I name another Democrat that I am often times in agreement that would make you feel better?

as long as the person has the right label according to you I guess ur ok right?
get past the labels on people holding so much weight plz - they are a guide - nothing more
It seems it is not mine, but YOUR own bias of liberals that has you see absolutely zero harm no matter what actions (and words) are taken by them
and since you can't seem to get past that you are really never going to go anywhere or gain anything and you waste my time and urs

I mean do you not find it at least funny what you just did and how dangerous you are?
you went from, "I did not read the language of his speech to be indicative of a preemptive detainment strategy in any way whatsoever" to "I agree with every thing he said"
point blank that is fucking scary

do you even know what preemptive crime laws or preemptive war means?
do you not see the harmful potential of a system like this?
I honestly don't know where to even begin with you.

"Most democrats and liberals alike are happy to lay the smack down on would be and proven terrorists."

Here in this statement you make lies my answer to you NewbSaibot. I think you should sign up and volunteer for the military.
(I am of course totally making an assumption here but I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet)

Though obv I would be against it completely you almost make me think a draft is a good answer
That would wake ur ass up real fast I bet and all the other self serving asses of people in America like you would at least think twice before saying oh ya sure war on terror hey that sounds good send the troops and resend them again to insure my safety gogo nomnomnom

and you wanna talk about honor?
The most honorable thing Obama could have done is kept his word and prosecuted those that were responsible for these torture crimes no matter how high up they were and showed the world he really meant business.
And if he needed to he should of made or insured policy in THE EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION of what he has done or is doing. Prolonged detention is towards torture not away from it

and before anyone else says it I'll go ahead and bring it up...
national security excuse my ass
that excuse fits but only a little bit
actions speak louder than words and if Obama had kept his honor in showing his actions and words were one and the same and as stated above Obama showed the world he meant what he said etc, the blowback would not be half as big compared to the hate that is coming in the future with the actions and direction this country is taking

but the problem is since in reality Obama's way is NOT any real change to foreign policy and interventionism or any of it and really Obama instead is actually going to escalate everything, then yes unfortunately national security does somewhat fit as a reason since it seems we are going to be there fighting for decades with no real change
so sadly Obama is not able to keep his word and thus loses honor

im down for civil war

careful what you wish for

this belongs here and I'll probably use it again