NBVegita

The way I'm looking at it is that if he's delivered the supposed 10,000-12,000 illegal immigrants to border patrol already, do you really think he stood there and asked them to stand still while he called the authorities? Logically this case makes no sense.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/f...rizona-rancher/ Can you say WTF? This is simply ridiculous. I honestly can't believe a federal Judge is allowing this case to continue. No wonder America is in such a sad state of affairs.

You know I have been sitting here and wondering to myself why there hasn't been any REAL discussion on this board in the past week. I mean so far we've had the pork-barrel items in the stimulus plan: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop...ries/index.html (DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with every item being labeled pork in there) We've had Obama break his own lobbyist rule: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/28/cam...view#cnnSTCText http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/cam...html#cnnSTCText We've had this whole Daschle scandal, don't think I really need to source that. I find it amusing that had McCain been in office right now, there would be three booming topics attributed to the aforementioned, yet with Obama in office, not so much as a peep on the boards about it. I mean we've only had a single topic on everything going on with Blagojevich, that only has 6 posts, only two of them even pertinent to Blagojevich. Now it could just be a natural lull in posting...but I have a feeling there is a trend here.

I simply posted them as support for a belief Machu had. In fact my exact quote is: No where was I saying that they definitely have to be terrorists because the EU and Canada consider them terrorists. My point being was that if Machu believes Hamas to be a terrorist group, which i really don't think we need to cite all of the evidence supporting that, and I think it was 32 major world countries agree with him, it's not a bad stance to take.

I was not stating if I did or did not consider Hamas a terrorist group, I was stating that if the majority of countries in the U.N. and EU (along with a few stragglers) it is not wrong to consider someone a terrorist group. All in defense of Machu's statement. What Sever was trying to egg out of him is that if you look at the very definition of terrorist, EVERY DAMN COUNTRY IN THE WORLD is a terrorist in some capacity. So I guess under that rule you have to decide which countries are more terrorist than others. Ultimately it's all politics and it's all a matter of where you sit on the fence. I mean there are still tons of people defending Israel's use of force right now. I mean look at it this way. If someone tells a lie once and then it gets repeated over and over, eventually that lie becomes the truth. If the majority of major countries in the world consider someone a terrorist, no matter if they are or not, they are a terrorist. Simply because you or I don't agree with it, doesn't ultimately mean a damn thing. A good example, half the country went around calling Bush an idiot. Dumber than a box of rocks. Does he have very conservative policies? Yes. Is he a fairly poor public speaker? Yes. Does that make him dumb? No. And before you even try to get into his grades at Yale, yes he only had a ~2.7 GPA, but could any of honestly tell me that you know the GPA of your doctor? Surgeon? Financial adviser? Psychiatrist? I mean the list goes on. It's also funny to note that no one ever likes to mention that Gore's grades at Harvard were worse than Bush's at Yale (but that's for another argument) Now the majority of the country walks around calling him the biggest idiot when I guarantee he is smarter than well over half of the people in America. Before this gets too off topic, if someone is wrong for believe someone is a terrorist group and uses the U.S. Australia, Japan, the EU and assorted other countries, to defend their point, what makes your horse so high and mighty as to say they're wrong and you're right? No matter how much research we do as people we will only know a very small fraction of what is actually going on in these situations to begin with. Do countries use the term terrorist politically? Yes. Do they also have infinitely more information on each of these groups and their actions than we do? Yes. Should we unquestioningly believe/side with them? No. Should we give weight to their claims? Yes. I find it funny that the first people to tell you that you're wrong and need to reevaluate your opinion are the last ones to do so themselves.

Well usually you go through a travel "company" to work with a travel agent. There has not been one vacation I've taken where I could have gotten the deal that my travel agent got me on vacations, and I'm not talking about just a few bucks off. It's very similar to why people hire wedding planners. It's not that everything is terribly difficult, it just can manage to be stressful, for example if you had a family of 5, so going through an agent, similar to a wedding planner is a convenience so that you don't have to worry.

I personally like the idea. They're not "banning" these people, it would be like a travel agent in America advertising that you will not find many, if any "thugs" on one of our vacations. No matter how you call it, a thug, a chav, a punk, insert label here, I would welcome as little social interaction as I can possibly have with them.

It's not a matter of being prosecuted, it's a matter of what they (could) find in the libraries. The problem is you're going to waste precious time and effort into further investigating something that has been attacked from all angles for 6 years. If you were brought to court with a crime, your trial wouldn't last 6 years. After this long the only chance you would have at finding any evidence would be in Bush's own presidential library, which is inaccessible without Bush's own consent. I'm not saying in any way shape or form that the president is above the law. What I'm saying is that after 6 years and with the recession, job loss, environment and wars we're fighting, pulling at straws trying to find some little piece of evidence that may or may not amount to anything is not worth the time it would take right now. I mean after 6 years of investigation into many of Bush's acts and officials, what, I mean what do you honestly expect to find now?

What do you honestly think will happen if you managed to dig up anything on Bush? First off I find it highly likely that Obama would pardon Bush, similar to Ford and Nixon, but do you really think getting caught is going to stop future presidents? They're just going to be better at hiding it. Do you really think no president since Nixon has done any of the dozen of illegal watergate issues? Look at ALL of the presidential scandals throughout history. Do you think that no president in the future of the U.S. is going to get head from an intern because Clinton got caught? There are HUNDREDS of issues more important and pressing than trying to run a committee to see if you can dig up evidence that you haven't been able to dig up in 6 years. Not to say that investigations never need to be run, but at this point no one and that is no one has found any information to incriminate Bush, it's time to move on. Also you might not give a damn about Hillary but you bet your ass every democrat in our political system does. Not only is she one of the most powerful democrat figures in the country, she's also a woman. They've already got Bush out of power, a resounding Democratic control, why would they want to bite their nose off to spite their face? And lol. As I've stated there is only one way to end democracy and you would need ALL 3 branches of government in perfect synchronization to do so. No president, does, will or can have the power to do so. Does it hurt? I mean a lot? You take things off the deep end so often, you must be in a lot of pain. You're honestly trying to compare the Bush administration to 3 of the 5 most devastating events in the 20th century? Not even to mention that they are not even remotely related to this situation. At least Obama has some common sense.

Talk about beating a dead horse. First off, Clinton wasn't almost impeached for lying about getting a blowjob, it was lying under oath that got him impeached, which was more just a technicality than anything else. Again, as I've stated before, you've got this novel idea of a war tribunal, the problem is you need this funny thing called evidence. It makes no difference how many people "know" something, without evidential proof, you've got nothing. Just a hint too, if this proof was attainable, Bush would have been impeached/arrested by now. The only chance of anything resembling proof would be in Bush's presidential library, which no one can access with out both Obama's and Bush's approval (even though he is no longer president). And don't even think about trying to pass a law dictating that you wouldn't need the past president's approval because that would never pass. If that did pass the republican's would attack the Clinton library over whitewater documentation, which would hurt not only the democrats, but Hillary. Honestly, stop beating a damn dead horse.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/pre...sion/index.html That is refreshing. I think that has been a major problem with the democratic controlled congress from the start. They've been more worried about trying to dig up skeletons and dirt than actually fixing real issues. Not to say that under the right circumstances investigations shouldn't be had. Honestly it's refreshing to see that Obama is actually worried about real issues, not simply trying to make the democrats look good or the republicans look bad.

If something critically bad had passed, organizations like moveon.org and the entire democratic congress would be further attacking the issue. Note that they are not. It was just another big scare like happens at the end of every presidency. It will happen at the end of the Obama presidency too.

This topic is simply about these "midnight resolutions" that everyone was claiming was going to be political Armageddon. As for your pending, what terrible resolutions have passed that so dearly detriment this country in the past 2 months?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...-regulations-2/ Imagine that...I was right. Nothing like working yourself into a fervor over something for no reason.

That is utter bull shit. Seriously I love how your mind works, if someone isn't as far left as you, they're automatically a right-wing nut job. I view being a moderate as someone who holds ideals from both sides of the fence and can appreciate both sides of the fence. I mean as a moderate Republican I voted for Obama, how do you explain that, being according to you, I'm a right-wing nut? In fact in the last 3 presidential elections I've only voted republican once.

The point is once the FBI cleared them they should have been allowed on the flight.

I would say I agree with kirk. The very first language I learned was VB but it was so boring I taught myself C++. It all depends on you.

Astro, Agreed.

Actually it's most likely going to ensure their early retirement as they at this time are almost certainly going to sue the airlines and if they do, will without a doubt win. Again the only thing I really view as wrong in this entire situation is that after the FBI cleared them the airline wouldn't book them another flight. They had the right to speak about safety on a plane, the passengers had a right to report it as suspicious, the airline had a right to investigate them, but once the FBI cleared them, the airline had no right to not book them a flight. Pretty simple concept.

Again LOSA, you are still discussing something illegal. Discussing where the safest place to sit on an airplane is not only legal but does not bear any resemblance of an act that could be illegal as if they were going to blow the plane up, no where on the plane is safe. Also if we didn't fight against racism and sexism women would still be stuck pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen and the majority of minorities would be slaves.

This isn't very common but I agree completely with Fin.

No where does Jefferson say that people should not work together. There is a difference between people working together to accomplish a goal and having the government run that goal. Jefferson also noted a need for some regulations but not complete government control. As for the financial crisis this entire thing would resolve itself if there was NO government bailout. The government is handing out billions of dollars to these industries who already screwed stuff up and are not giving them rules about how to use it (at least strict rules). If these companies collapse, there will be a sharp recession until other companies grow to fill their spots. As of now the government is putting a fresh coat of paint over something that needs to be knocked down and rebuilt. But ultimately this is an argument for another topic.

Lol sever. You really are amusing. Who would you consider a viable source for labeling a group a terrorist then? Oh yeah I forget in order for anything to be a credible source to you it has to have a noted hate for either the United States, Israel or the west as a whole. My mistake.

Well being everyone defines terrorist in a different fashion I would have to say its a good bet that they're a terrorist group if they're recognized by both the EU and Canada as being terrorists. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/e...9en00580062.pdf - EU http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp - Canada And just for reference the EU contains: Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus the Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta the Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden the United Kingdom I would have added that the U.S. also considers them one but that's a "DUH!"