Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

[johnnyrodgers20]

 

The 2009 bailout bill prevented another Depression. The fact that we're seeing clear signs of economic recovery today is directly attributable to that bill. Yeah, it sucked, but if you want to blame someone for ever having to throw that money away, blame the GOP president whose policies so thoroughly wrecked the economy that we were backed into a corner and had to do this. Had McCain won the election he'd have had to promulgate the same bill.

 

That is conjecture, I would like to know what inofrmation backs up your assertions. First, clear signs of economic recovery, what are those signs that are directly related to that bill? What are the policies by bush that wrecked this country?

 

It's not conjecture. It's based on sound fiscal numbers.

 

 

Bailout Prevents Great Depression 2.0

 

Bottom line: Lots of folks have problems with the bailout. Liberals don't like a government bailout of Wall Street (instead of more homeowner help). Conservatives don't like a government bailout of Wall Street (vs. letting the market have its way). In a commentary on the National Review website, Newt Gingrich shows great skepticism toward the Mother of All Bailouts, advising that Congress "had better ask a lot of questions before it shifts this much burden to the taxpayer and shifts this much power to a Washington bureaucracy." He also presents several other actions government could take: 1) suspend the mark-to-market accounting rule; 2) repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley law; 3) eliminate the capital-gains tax; 4) undertake an "all of the above" energy plan to keep at home $500 billion of the $700 billion we currently send overseas for imported energy.

 

Count me as "all of the above" for Gingrich's ideas. (Toss in a corporate tax cut while you're at it.) But what would have been a smart, free-market plan in August 2007 or March of this year isn't enough for right now. Just as government created the environment for the credit crisis, it failed to enact quick solutions. The situation has gone critical. It's time for shock and awe.

 

This is a 2008 article written by a guy against the bailout - but who foresees the disaster if we don't do it. Note - this article was written two months before Obama won the election. The economy was in a shambles after Bush's war-time spending, the bursting of the housing and dot-com bubbles and rampant deregulation - and Bush had already bailed out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns, and others.

 

 

As for the stimulus' success, Carlfense has already posted job-growth data since the bailout, we are factually not in a depression, and consumer confidence is up. It's a work in progress so it's not the time to declare it a success. Certainly, to this point, it is not a failure.

 

 

Your assumption was that doing nothing is the only other scenario and BO did the right thing. That is not true and the policy he chose harmed the economy.

 

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/08/bailout-counter-factual/

[carlfense]

Again symbols are much different then indoctrination. They do not read anything from the bible the only thing even remotely religious is the fact that it is a church. I would be againt them reading from a bible just like the Koran. It is a secular ceremony from what I have gathered it is just conducted in a church. I am sure you are smart enough to know the difference.

So your tradition argument is only to be used with religious locations only? Government run secular ceremonies at religious locations are ok?

[knapplc]

Your assumption was that doing nothing is the only other scenario and BO did the right thing. That is not true and the policy he chose harmed the economy.

 

http://www.ritholtz....ounter-factual/

 

Which part of this blog you've linked shows that Obama did the wrong thing in his 2009 bailout? Specific paragraphs/graphs, etc?

 

Because the title being "2008 Bailout Counter-Factual" leads me to believe (and the blog itself supports this) that this guy is decrying George Bush's bailout of Fannie/Freddie et al., not Obama's bailout.

 

Ritholz does comment on TARP, but his conclusions don't really support your argument.

[carlfense]

Which part of this blog you've linked shows that Obama did the wrong thing in his 2009 bailout? Specific paragraphs/graphs, etc?

 

Because the title being "2008 Bailout Counter-Factual" leads me to believe (and the blog itself supports this) that this guy is decrying George Bush's bailout of Fannie/Freddie et al., not Obama's bailout.

 

Ritholz does comment on TARP, but his conclusions don't really support your argument.

Oops.

 

 

There you go again knapp. You're just like Obama . . . trying to blame Bush for your problems. Haha.

[husker_99]

You don't really know how a person is til he is President. Simply saying the lesser of evils is a cop out. His first two years he had a Democratically controlled both houses and nothing got through. I'd rather have someone who has balls to do something rather than do nothing.

 

Like the balls to go into Pakistan and kill bin Laden? Or the balls to sign off on a huge spending bill to salvage the gutted economy so we didn't fall into yet another Great Depression? Those are some pretty damned big decisions for a president who has done "nothing."

 

First Pakistan doesn't have complete control of their country. The Military doesn't go into some areas and the Taliban does have some sort of stronghold. So going into Pakistan wasn't the problem. Bin Laden wasn't that big of a deal to kill cause he would just be replaced. Terrorist organizations aren't structured that great. It's not like if you take out the head guy then everyone falls in line. Al Qeada hasn't stopped since Bin Laden was killed and more of a symbolic kill. Too bad that our own government gave his people the training to attack us after staving off the Soviets.

 

His spending bill just prolonged the depression we are in. The economy always goes into a cycle into a boom and bust. We just came out of the internet boom so heading downward should've been expected. The only thing Obama has done is contribute to the national debt.

 

Um.... wrong and wrong.

 

Killing the world's most-wanted man, and doing it in the territory of a Nuclear Power, is not a small thing. It's absurd to minimize this. You don't have to like Obama in any way to recognize the gravity of this decision, and to give him approbation for the successful accomplishment of this task. Let's not for a second pretend that the GOP/Tea Party wouldn't have trumpeted this to the heavens if a Republican president (say, George Bush) had accomplished this goal.

 

The 2009 bailout bill prevented another Depression. The fact that we're seeing clear signs of economic recovery today is directly attributable to that bill. Yeah, it sucked, but if you want to blame someone for ever having to throw that money away, blame the GOP president whose policies so thoroughly wrecked the economy that we were backed into a corner and had to do this. Had McCain won the election he'd have had to promulgate the same bill.

 

No you are wrong. This conflict map shows the taliban's strongholds and presence in Pakistan

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8046577.stm

 

Sorry but Pakistan Government doesn't have fully control of their country and the battle rages on. yes it is from 2009 but proves my point. Pakistan isn't going to use their nukes.

 

Again it's easy to say bailout mattered when we don't know what would have happened for sure if they didn't happen. Sure you can find most people who say it mattered cause no one wants to feel like we pissed away a over a trillion dollars helping out companies that can't run themselves.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Your assumption was that doing nothing is the only other scenario and BO did the right thing. That is not true and the policy he chose harmed the economy.

 

http://www.ritholtz....ounter-factual/

 

Which part of this blog you've linked shows that Obama did the wrong thing in his 2009 bailout? Specific paragraphs/graphs, etc?

 

Because the title being "2008 Bailout Counter-Factual" leads me to believe (and the blog itself supports this) that this guy is decrying George Bush's bailout of Fannie/Freddie et al., not Obama's bailout.

 

Ritholz does comment on TARP, but his conclusions don't really support your argument.

 

 

Yes they do, his comment on tarp was that the banks didn't really need the money of they would have held onto the cheap money. Instead they chose to give the money back. And just because Bush made a bad policy doesn't mean BO gets a pass when he made similar policies. I think if your policies are wrong, no matter who you are, then you should be called out. Bush did the wrong thing and BO made it worse.

[knapplc]

 

Killing the world's most-wanted man, and doing it in the territory of a Nuclear Power, is not a small thing. It's absurd to minimize this. You don't have to like Obama in any way to recognize the gravity of this decision, and to give him approbation for the successful accomplishment of this task. Let's not for a second pretend that the GOP/Tea Party wouldn't have trumpeted this to the heavens if a Republican president (say, George Bush) had accomplished this goal.

 

No you are wrong. This conflict map shows the taliban's strongholds and presence in Pakistan

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/8046577.stm

 

Sorry but Pakistan Government doesn't have fully control of their country and the battle rages on. yes it is from 2009 but proves my point. Pakistan isn't going to use their nukes.

 

 

I'm sorry, what point do you think that map proves? I have no idea what part of my post you're disagreeing with, or how the map you're showing means we didn't kill bin Laden.

 

What is your point, aside from "you're wrong?"

[carlfense]

Bush did the wrong thing and BO made it worse.

Show me. Show me the policy/policies that made it worse. Show me how much better we would have been without those policies. Etc.

[husker_99]

 

Killing the world's most-wanted man, and doing it in the territory of a Nuclear Power, is not a small thing. It's absurd to minimize this. You don't have to like Obama in any way to recognize the gravity of this decision, and to give him approbation for the successful accomplishment of this task. Let's not for a second pretend that the GOP/Tea Party wouldn't have trumpeted this to the heavens if a Republican president (say, George Bush) had accomplished this goal.

 

No you are wrong. This conflict map shows the taliban's strongholds and presence in Pakistan

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/8046577.stm

 

Sorry but Pakistan Government doesn't have fully control of their country and the battle rages on. yes it is from 2009 but proves my point. Pakistan isn't going to use their nukes.

 

 

I'm sorry, what point do you think that map proves? I have no idea what part of my post you're disagreeing with, or how the map you're showing means we didn't kill bin Laden.

 

What is your point, aside from "you're wrong?"

 

I told you going into Pakistan was no problem cause the government didn't have full control of their country. Solely crediting Obama with the kill is absurd. Without of those years of Bush pursuing him Osama would be alive today and Obama wouldn't have gotten a chance to kill him. It was a symbolic kill. Killing Osama isn't going to stop terrorism. I dont really care if he was dead or alive cause there were bigger problems than him.

[carlfense]

I told you going into Pakistan was no problem cause the government didn't have full control of their country. Solely crediting Obama with the kill is absurd. Without of those years of Bush pursuing him Osama would be alive today and Obama wouldn't have gotten a chance to kill him. It was a symbolic kill. Killing Osama isn't going to stop terrorism. I dont really care if he was dead or alive cause there were bigger problems than him.

Bush gave up on trying to get Osama. Obama made getting Osama a top priority. You're trying to re-write history.

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that you swallowed that BS narrative from the GOP hook, line, and sinker. This sort of thing reminds me of a quote thrown around about us living in "post-truth" times.

 

Bush Quotes

Who knows if he’s [bin Laden] hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

[bin Laden] not a top priority use of American resources.

[knapplc]

 

Killing the world's most-wanted man, and doing it in the territory of a Nuclear Power, is not a small thing. It's absurd to minimize this. You don't have to like Obama in any way to recognize the gravity of this decision, and to give him approbation for the successful accomplishment of this task. Let's not for a second pretend that the GOP/Tea Party wouldn't have trumpeted this to the heavens if a Republican president (say, George Bush) had accomplished this goal.

 

No you are wrong. This conflict map shows the taliban's strongholds and presence in Pakistan

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/8046577.stm

 

Sorry but Pakistan Government doesn't have fully control of their country and the battle rages on. yes it is from 2009 but proves my point. Pakistan isn't going to use their nukes.

 

 

I'm sorry, what point do you think that map proves? I have no idea what part of my post you're disagreeing with, or how the map you're showing means we didn't kill bin Laden.

 

What is your point, aside from "you're wrong?"

 

I told you going into Pakistan was no problem cause the government didn't have full control of their country. Solely crediting Obama with the kill is absurd. Without of those years of Bush pursuing him Osama would be alive today and Obama wouldn't have gotten a chance to kill him. It was a symbolic kill. Killing Osama isn't going to stop terrorism. I dont really care if he was dead or alive cause there were bigger problems than him.

 

This is utter BS. Laughable. But whatever. You can believe what you want to believe.

[husker_99]

I told you going into Pakistan was no problem cause the government didn't have full control of their country. Solely crediting Obama with the kill is absurd. Without of those years of Bush pursuing him Osama would be alive today and Obama wouldn't have gotten a chance to kill him. It was a symbolic kill. Killing Osama isn't going to stop terrorism. I dont really care if he was dead or alive cause there were bigger problems than him.

Bush gave up on trying to get Osama. Obama made getting Osama a top priority. You're trying to re-write history.

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that you swallowed that BS narrative from the GOP hook, line, and sinker. This sort of thing reminds me of a quote thrown around about us living in "post-truth" times.

 

Bush Quotes

Who knows if he’s [bin Laden] hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

[bin Laden] not a top priority use of American resources.

 

So you are telling me if Bush wasn't pursuing Osama, Obama would have killed Osama as soon as he got into office? Let's say 9/11 never happened, Obama still kills Osama? Your last two quotes lead me to see that Bush was focusing on terrorism overall and just like i said Osama isn't bigger than terrorism itself.

[husker_99]

 

Killing the world's most-wanted man, and doing it in the territory of a Nuclear Power, is not a small thing. It's absurd to minimize this. You don't have to like Obama in any way to recognize the gravity of this decision, and to give him approbation for the successful accomplishment of this task. Let's not for a second pretend that the GOP/Tea Party wouldn't have trumpeted this to the heavens if a Republican president (say, George Bush) had accomplished this goal.

 

No you are wrong. This conflict map shows the taliban's strongholds and presence in Pakistan

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/8046577.stm

 

Sorry but Pakistan Government doesn't have fully control of their country and the battle rages on. yes it is from 2009 but proves my point. Pakistan isn't going to use their nukes.

 

 

I'm sorry, what point do you think that map proves? I have no idea what part of my post you're disagreeing with, or how the map you're showing means we didn't kill bin Laden.

 

What is your point, aside from "you're wrong?"

 

I told you going into Pakistan was no problem cause the government didn't have full control of their country. Solely crediting Obama with the kill is absurd. Without of those years of Bush pursuing him Osama would be alive today and Obama wouldn't have gotten a chance to kill him. It was a symbolic kill. Killing Osama isn't going to stop terrorism. I dont really care if he was dead or alive cause there were bigger problems than him.

 

This is utter BS. Laughable. But whatever. You can believe what you want to believe.

 

You mean reality instead of fantasy based? I don't really think you kept up to knowthe inroads that the Taliban made into Pakistan.

[carlfense]

I told you going into Pakistan was no problem cause the government didn't have full control of their country. Solely crediting Obama with the kill is absurd. Without of those years of Bush pursuing him Osama would be alive today and Obama wouldn't have gotten a chance to kill him. It was a symbolic kill. Killing Osama isn't going to stop terrorism. I dont really care if he was dead or alive cause there were bigger problems than him.

Bush gave up on trying to get Osama. Obama made getting Osama a top priority. You're trying to re-write history.

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that you swallowed that BS narrative from the GOP hook, line, and sinker. This sort of thing reminds me of a quote thrown around about us living in "post-truth" times.

 

Bush Quotes

Who knows if he’s [bin Laden] hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

[bin Laden] not a top priority use of American resources.

 

So you are telling me if Bush wasn't pursuing Osama, Obama would have killed Osama as soon as he got into office? Let's say 9/11 never happened, Obama still kills Osama? Your last two quotes lead me to see that Bush was focusing on terrorism overall and just like i said Osama isn't bigger than terrorism itself.

Who said that Osama was bigger than terrorism itself or that Obama would have killed Bin Laden if 9/11 hadn't happened? Do your strawmen provide good company?

 

Bush, despite vowing that "[w]e're going to get Bin Laden, dead or alive," abandoned the mission. Obama made it a priority and succeeded where Bush had utterly failed.

 

Let's be honest here. If Bush had killed Bin Laden he would be on the GOP version of Mt. Rushmore by now. He failed. Since Obama succeeded it's now regarded as not a big deal.

[knapplc]

 

I told you going into Pakistan was no problem cause the government didn't have full control of their country. Solely crediting Obama with the kill is absurd. Without of those years of Bush pursuing him Osama would be alive today and Obama wouldn't have gotten a chance to kill him. It was a symbolic kill. Killing Osama isn't going to stop terrorism. I dont really care if he was dead or alive cause there were bigger problems than him.

 

This is utter BS. Laughable. But whatever. You can believe what you want to believe.

 

You mean reality instead of fantasy based? I don't really think you kept up to knowthe inroads that the Taliban made into Pakistan.

 

Fantasy, as in your straw-man arguments and red herrings? Nobody said that Obama got sole credit for killing bin Laden. Straw man. Nobody is talking about whether the Taliban has sovereignty over Pakistan-held territory. Red herring.

 

You have no idea what I know about the Taliban. I'm as informed as you, I have the same access to google as you, and neither of us are on the ground over there. I have buddies on the ground in Afghanistan, I've kept up correspondence with a friend in an intelligence FOB over there, and I have as much knowledge of the situation as any other joker sitting on his butt in front of a monitor has. So stop with the implication that you know more than I do about the situation over there.

 

As Carlfense pointed out, Bush stopped pursuing bin Laden, even stated it publicly.

 

 

 

 

Let's be honest here. If Bush had killed Bin Laden he would be on the GOP version of Mt. Rushmore by now. He failed. Since Obama succeeded it's now regarded as not a big deal.

 

Exactly. It beggars belief that people insinuate otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

husker_99 - you're a Republican, yes?