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

[johnnyrodgers20]

That is nothing more than your interpretation. So if I posted a picture of Jesus on this site you would magically feel compelled to become a born again Christian, you know that is illogical. chuckleshuffle

What? Is HuskerBoard operated by the US government? Is it an agent of the government in a position of authority?

This is where your argument breaks down. You apparently don't know when or where the First Amendment applies.

I do know that,I am just doing a blind experiment who cares where it is done? If I post a picture of Jesus do you feel compelled to be a born again Christian? If it makes you feel better the picture is at the steps of the Capitol, does that make you feel compelled to become a born again Christian by just looking at it? Really simple - yes or no? :dunno

The Constitution of the United States cares where it is done. Don't you profess to be one of the people who love that document? You might want to learn what it says. We were talking about the First Amendment, right?

Your analogy is absolutely inapplicable outside of a government forum.

Please. Let's go back to you providing 5 examples that you say prove that the ACLU hates and attacks Christianity . . . even though I provided 30+ that show that they actively defend Christianity. That was working so well for you.

Deflection- I said the picture was at the steps of the Capitol, just for laughs there is a picture of Jesus in the foyer of the Capitol (that should rise to the level needed) Would you feel compelled to drop all your beliefs and become a born again Christian just by looking at that picture? Yes or No please!! chuckleshuffle

 

[carlfense]

Do you think the government should be able to force religious beliefs on the people - yes or no?

Why does your question insist on born again? Strange stuff.

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

Do you think the government should be able to force religious beliefs on the people - yes or no?

Why does your question insist on born again? Strange stuff.

I willl answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I say born again because most Christian faiths believe that if you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and you are an adult you are born again. You don't have to use that term; would you be compelled to drop all of your beliefs and be compelled to believe that Jesus is the Son of God just because you saw a picture of him in the Capitol? Yes or No.

 

[carlfense]

Compelled? No.

Your turn.

 

[knapplc]

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.

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

Compelled? No.

Your turn.

No

Do you think the government should be able to force religious beliefs on the people - yes or no?

Why does your question insist on born again? Strange stuff.

No

 

[carlfense]

Do you think the government should be able to force religious beliefs on the people - yes or no?

No

OK! Common ground. We agree that the government should not be allowed to force religious beliefs on the people. I guess our disagreement lies in what rises to the level of forcing religious beliefs.

Do you think that forcing graduating seniors to attend a mosque before receiving their diplomas is appropriate? Does it rise to that level?

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

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.

Excellent post

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? :dunno

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

Do you think the government should be able to force religious beliefs on the people - yes or no?

No

OK! Common ground. We agree that the government should not be allowed to force religious beliefs on the people. I guess our disagreement lies in what rises to the level of forcing religious beliefs.

Do you think that forcing graduating seniors to attend a mosque before receiving their diplomas is appropriate? Does it rise to that level?

If a town has been doing it for a certain amount of years and it is tradition, no. I don't have a problem if an area say, in Michigan has them perform their ceremony in a mosque. I am rather intrigued by mosques and would like to look at one myself, that doesn't mean I am throwing away my religious beliefs or am somehow insulted by their symbols. I am comfortable enough in my beliefs that another religion's symbol or church does not affect me that much. :thumbs

 

[carlfense]

Do you think the government should be able to force religious beliefs on the people - yes or no?

No

OK! Common ground. We agree that the government should not be allowed to force religious beliefs on the people. I guess our disagreement lies in what rises to the level of forcing religious beliefs.

Do you think that forcing graduating seniors to attend a mosque before receiving their diplomas is appropriate? Does it rise to that level?

If a town has been doing it for a certain amount of years and it is tradition, no. I don't have a problem if an area say, in Michigan has them perform their ceremony in a mosque. I am rather intrigued by mosques and would like to look at one myself, that doesn't mean I am throwing away my religious beliefs or am somehow insulted by their symbols. I am comfortable enough in my beliefs that another religion's symbol or church does not affect me that much. :thumbs

Progress!

If it is a tradition, you think it's ok?

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

Do you think the government should be able to force religious beliefs on the people - yes or no?

No

OK! Common ground. We agree that the government should not be allowed to force religious beliefs on the people. I guess our disagreement lies in what rises to the level of forcing religious beliefs.

Do you think that forcing graduating seniors to attend a mosque before receiving their diplomas is appropriate? Does it rise to that level?

If a town has been doing it for a certain amount of years and it is tradition, no. I don't have a problem if an area say, in Michigan has them perform their ceremony in a mosque. I am rather intrigued by mosques and would like to look at one myself, that doesn't mean I am throwing away my religious beliefs or am somehow insulted by their symbols. I am comfortable enough in my beliefs that another religion's symbol or church does not affect me that much. :thumbs

Progress!

If it is a tradition, you think it's ok?

Yes, that is a 70 year old tradtion that I showed you. There can be more than religious reasons for having it at that church. Many people follow traditions and like tham.

 

[carlfense]

Yes, that is a 70 year old tradtion that I showed you. There can be more than religious reasons for having it at that church. Many people follow traditions and like tham.

So if it is a 70 year tradition it's OK with you?

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

Yes, that is a 70 year old tradtion that I showed you. There can be more than religious reasons for having it at that church. Many people follow traditions and like tham.

So if it is a 70 year tradition it's OK with you?

I just said that, I really don't think that a church is that big of a deal. If it is a mosque, no big deal.

 

[carlfense]

Yes, that is a 70 year old tradtion that I showed you. There can be more than religious reasons for having it at that church. Many people follow traditions and like tham.

So if it is a 70 year tradition it's OK with you?

I just said that, I really don't think that a church is that big of a deal. If it is a mosque, no big deal.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to get a feel for why you believe what you do.

Does this 70 year tradition exception extend to mandatory student readings from the Koran? It's been done for 70 years. No one has complained until now. Etc.

 

[knapplc]

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? :dunno

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.