Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Give 'Em Head Harry (Reid) Strikes Again!

enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
edited May 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
So as we know the Republicans have been fearmongering the hell out of the Gitmo closure with "terrorists coming to a state near you" and what not. And the Democrats will give them Houses and put them on welfare and probably give them the vote while they're at it. Best exemplified by this video released by Senate Republicans recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRmBsvWgdbE

Naturally, Harry Reid caved to these asshats. And then he gave the following press conference where he uttered maybe the single most incomprehensible statement made by an American politician in the last decade (which as we know, is quite a high bar to cross):
REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …

REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.

Later, Reid repeated that he would not support Guantanamo detainees being transferred to U.S prisons:

QUESTION: But Senator, Senator, it’s not that you’re not being clear when you say you don’t want them released. But could you say — would you be all right with them being transferred to an American prison?

REID: Not in the United States.

I know Harry is a spineless coward in the face of Republican attacks, but that's impressive even for him.

So for a topic: what the fuck is the response to this from the administration? They can't close Gitmo without the money to close Gitmo, soooo...

enlightenedbum on
Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
«13

Posts

  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood rapid decline speak no evilRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Clearly, Harry Reid must be...

    eliminated

    37gqz5zc547d.png
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Cloudman wrote: »
    Clearly, Harry Reid must be...

    eliminated

    All Reids are now enemies of the Republic.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Reid is beyond fucking useless

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I hate this asshole.
    REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

    What the fuck does that even mean?

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    On the plus side, a new poll in Nevada shows him with 38/50 favorable/unfavorable, so if Dkos gets a primary challenge going, there's a chance.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    What does it take to get a new Senate Majority Leader? I'd take Nelson, Bayh, anyone. Even Arlen Specter would be an improvement at this point.

    Edit: Heck, tell Collins and Snowe that we'll make one of them Majority Leader if they switch parties.

  • ArgusArgus Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I actually read an article on CNN saying:
    House Democrats told the president Monday he won't be getting money to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, until he has a "concrete program" for shutting it down and moving its prisoners.

    Ok, fair enough, there needs to be a plan for where to put the prisoners since we're literally going to shut the prison down.
    ---

    This shit with Harry Reid, though, where he's saying that we aren't going to release Gitmo prisoners into any US prisons ever?

    Goddamn it.

    pasigsizedu5.jpg
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    What the fuck does "you can't move them without releasing them" mean?

    It doesn't mean anything, it makes no godamn sense.

    I hate this asshole.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Apparently he thinks that the suggestion is to have the prisoners voluntarily show up at their new digs.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Harry Reid is the most spineless, idiotic fuckwit that the Democrats have ever had as a leadership figure in the party. I hope DKos and the progressive wing of the party primary him, even at the cost of losing his senate seat to a Republican, he is just that useless.

    steam_sig.png
  • JebuJebu Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Reid is beyond fucking useless

  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    On the plus side, a new poll in Nevada shows him with 38/50 favorable/unfavorable, so if Dkos gets a primary challenge going, there's a chance.

    As much as I'd love to see him sunk at this point, since Durbin or Schumer is the likely next in line, I don't see it happening. Reid has a metric fuckton of money and the Nevada republicans are a mess. So either we're deep in the weeds or Reid is here for at least another six years, neither situation something I'm looking forward to seeing.

  • DalbozDalboz Resident Puppy Eater Right behind you...Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    What might be happening is that some of the Dems are getting pissed at Obama for going back on his promises. So far, what I'm seeing is Obama wanting to close Guantanamo just because it's been a political target, but not stopping the reason why it's drawn such political fire. He's planning to close the base, but still wants to do military tribunal, still hold prisoners indefinitely, still deny habeus corpus, and basically just move the prisoners around without actually stopping anything. They may be demanding a public plan to be announced so it can face public scrutiny. I'm usually not one to defend a politician for anything, and I'm not doing so in this case, just throwing out a possible explanation.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I never got why people hated Harry Reid so much.

    Until now.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I generally avoid argument from authority in regards to detainees, but as someone who has guarded and moved detainees, you can move the fuckers somewhere without releasing them and anyone saying otherwise is wrong.

    Since, you know, they run really fast if you do release them and you get in trouble for letting them go.

    PSN: allenquid
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The media has been mentioning the fact that the Democrats (Reid's 'explanation' was mindnumbingly stupid) are facing constituency pressure within their own districts to the effect of "We don't want them in the US." Which is what has been motivating the moves to the deny the president funding to close Gitmo.

    It isn't entirely a Republican pressure problem, especially given that if this were just Republican pressure, then the Dems would jump on the places in the States that have already offered their prisons to hold these prisoners instead of stopping the president.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I am baffled how any of this is even a fucking issue. The only lost resource from closing Gitmo is Torture which the administration has already said it won't use. The GOP concept of these super terrorists who will break free and blow up buildings would be laughable if people didn't seem to believe it.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.

    PSN: QuipFilter
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Hoz wrote: »
    I never got why people hated Harry Reid so much.

    Until now.

    People like me (well, sensible ones anyway) don't like Harry Reid not because he's a DINO (Democrat in name only) or some other garbage like that, but it's because the man literally has no backbone. It was surgically removed. So were his balls. This is evidenced because he capitulates on every bloody thing that comes up, especially if the opposition party so much as breathes in his direction.

    steam_sig.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    The media has been mentioning the fact that the Democrats (Reid's 'explanation' was mindnumbingly stupid) are facing constituency pressure within their own districts to the effect of "We don't want them in the US." Which is what has been motivating the moves to the deny the president funding to close Gitmo.

    It isn't entirely a Republican pressure problem, especially given that if this were just Republican pressure, then the Dems would jump on the places in the States that have already offered their prisons to hold these prisoners instead of stopping the president.

    The only one I've heard is Kansas isn't a big fan of storing them at Leavenworth. Represented by you know, a bunch of Republicans. Hell, there's a prison in Montana begging for them.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    "The plan to transfer the detainees to the US isn't concrete enough" is a fine point. No one should be ashamed of making that point.

    But what the fuck is, "to move them we have to release them"?

    That isn't just cowardice, that is pure panic. How did he get into a leadership position?

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dalboz wrote: »
    What might be happening is that some of the Dems are getting pissed at Obama for going back on his promises. So far, what I'm seeing is Obama wanting to close Guantanamo just because it's been a political target, but not stopping the reason why it's drawn such political fire. He's planning to close the base, but still wants to do military tribunal, still hold prisoners indefinitely, still deny habeus corpus, and basically just move the prisoners around without actually stopping anything. They may be demanding a public plan to be announced so it can face public scrutiny. I'm usually not one to defend a politician for anything, and I'm not doing so in this case, just throwing out a possible explanation.

    Yeah, they're going to everything possible to make sure those poor bastards rot in a cell for the rest of their lives. They are not going to risk the gory details of these guy's treatment and initial pickup circumstances for the world public to see, we would be vilified. (But notably probably not from our own press since they are all but worthless at this point.) I have no doubt most of these guys were wrong place wrong time, or simply ratted out by a neighbor for some quick cash. And from the guys that have made it even to an inkling of a trial, it's become blatantly obvious that government has little to go on, and all of what they do seems circumstantial and based entirely on hearsay.

    The other very real problem is that if they weren't terrorists before, they sure as hell are now, the countries these guys were taken from won't take them back, and US simply cannot allow them to be released in the US (which if given public trials there would incredible pressure to release them I'm sure.) I don't envy Obama's admin on dealing with the Bush Admin.'s incredible folly here. I'm not entirely sure how I would solve this detainee problem either.

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    The media has been mentioning the fact that the Democrats (Reid's 'explanation' was mindnumbingly stupid) are facing constituency pressure within their own districts to the effect of "We don't want them in the US." Which is what has been motivating the moves to the deny the president funding to close Gitmo.

    It isn't entirely a Republican pressure problem, especially given that if this were just Republican pressure, then the Dems would jump on the places in the States that have already offered their prisons to hold these prisoners instead of stopping the president.

    The only one I've heard is Kansas isn't a big fan of storing them at Leavenworth. Represented by you know, a bunch of Republicans. Hell, there's a prison in Montana begging for them.

    I'd really like an actual poll to investigate this issue as a means of providing reassurance/confirmation to Democratic fears. I mean, if you get a poll saying "No, they really don't mind them having them moved to the US" then you can trot that around to the Party to gain support for actually following through on the plan.

    But no, rather than finding any polls on this issue for a useful question we get polling of: "Do you think it's a good idea to close Guantanamo?" Grrrrr.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I just have to wonder about the position of not wanting these terrorist suspects to be transferred to a persons state. I mean, in the very unlikely event that one of these guys were to escape, are the local populations of bumfuck nowhere USA scared of one of these guys going small time and committing an attack in their shithole town?

    The NIMBY attitude is just absolutely ridiculous.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    You have to remember, terrorists are like the Joker and George Bush is Batman. They're an irresistible force, unable to be contained by mere mortals.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    NIMBY attitudes usually are based on alternative and/or not entirely rationally-based considerations. I mean, look at NIMBY attitudes that crop up over wind turbines, nuclear power, nuclear-waste disposal, etc.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    NIMBY attitudes usually are based on alternative and/or not entirely rationally-based considerations. I mean, look at NIMBY attitudes that crop up over wind turbines, nuclear power, nuclear-waste disposal, etc.

    Hey wind turbines aren't pretty so you can't have them fucking up the view at the Kennedy compound.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Luckily, Superman is in office.

    Seriously though, I think a vast swath of your population has been ruined by television (ie 24). Some of the reasonings could only work in fiction.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    oldmanken wrote: »
    Luckily, Superman is in office.

    Seriously though, I think a vast swath of your population has been ruined by television (ie 24). Some of the reasonings could only work in fiction.

    I don't think it's because Americans are stupid, per se, but more that they are lazy, physically and intellectually.

    steam_sig.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Our media spouting right wing talking points as if they were facts doesn't help matters.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Hey wind turbines aren't pretty so you can't have them fucking up the view at the Kennedy compound.
    Dude, we have windmills in the next town over and they are fucking amazing. Seriously awe inspiring to look at.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.

    PSN: QuipFilter
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Hey wind turbines aren't pretty so you can't have them fucking up the view at the Kennedy compound.
    Dude, we have windmills in the next town over and they are fucking amazing. Seriously awe inspiring to look at.

    I was citing the stupidest example of wind NIMBYism.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2009
    What the hell is up with them using O Fortuna? The song is about how what we do doesn't matter, and we have no choice but to face our fate. I mean, people that know such things aren't their target audience, but the song features odd subject material considering what they are trying to get across.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I just love looking at them.

    We've got our own brand of stupid NIMBY here. So, a couple years ago we lost power along with half the eastern seaboard because the grid sucks. One of the answers was to build a giant transmission line through our area, NYRI or something. It of course died because people all bitched about how horrible it was. One notable guy I worked with bitched up a storm about the power outage but still pushed against the transmission line.

    Fucking NIMBY whiners.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.

    PSN: QuipFilter
  • CrimsondudeCrimsondude Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    On the plus side, a new poll in Nevada shows him with 38/50 favorable/unfavorable, so if Dkos gets a primary challenge going, there's a chance.

    Oscar Goodman for Senate.

  • NartwakNartwak Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    I generally avoid argument from authority in regards to detainees, but as someone who has guarded and moved detainees, you can move the fuckers somewhere without releasing them and anyone saying otherwise is wrong.

    Since, you know, they run really fast if you do release them and you get in trouble for letting them go.

    "No, Terrorists are vampires!! They will control men's minds and will fly away into the night!" - Republican and Democratic pundits; MSNBC, FOX, CNN.

    Spoiler:
  • agoajagoaj Hey You Pichu I don't like your girlfriendRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Why can't they just pick a new senate majority leader? Or do they all need to be from Nevada?

    aqOYSK0.gif
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Hey wind turbines aren't pretty so you can't have them fucking up the view at the Kennedy compound.
    Dude, we have windmills in the next town over and they are fucking amazing. Seriously awe inspiring to look at.

    Yeah, I've actually always found wind farms to be beautiful. I don't get how people think they spoil the landscape.

  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    agoaj wrote: »
    Why can't they just pick a new senate majority leader? Or do they all need to be from Nevada?

    They can, if they wanted. Unfortunately, it would take a near unanimous decision that the Speaker needed to go, and even besides the fact we have a sizable contingent that are in the same beaten dog mindset it's extremely rare to see leadership bucked in the Senate. Pretty much the only time in recent memory it's happened in Congress as a whole was when Waxman pushed out Dingell to head Energy in the House and that only happened after a longshot fight when Dingell had been egregiously bad for years.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The whole "we can't have terrorists in America" bullshit needs to stop. We currently incarcerate serial killers, rapists, murderers, and gangsters. Successful escapes, much less attempts, are almost unheard of. Is it really the position of our politicians that our correctional facilities, which already handle the worst of the worst, can't handle some "terrorists"? Or are they and their idiot constituents now convinced that we live in the world of 24 instead of the real world?

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The whole "we can't have terrorists in America" bullshit needs to stop. We currently incarcerate serial killers, rapists, murderers, and gangsters. Successful escapes, much less attempts, are almost unheard of. Is it really the position of our politicians that our correctional facilities, which already handle the worst of the worst, can't handle some "terrorists"? Or are they and their idiot constituents now convinced that we live in the world of 24 instead of the real world?

    Hi, welcome to Republicanism circa 2001-present

    metroid_sig.jpg
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.