Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Where is NLA?
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Where is NLA?
Tweet Topic Started: Feb 6 2009, 03:19 PM (222 Views)
HoosierLars Feb 7 2009, 01:30 PM Post #16
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,921
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Bobobinc
Feb 7 2009, 11:55 AM
As for Daschle, the administration knew they screwed up and probably asked for him to withdraw, let him try to save a little face. I don't understand how Geitner is still in.

Geitner is the world's SECOND smartest man, next to The Messiah. :sarcasm:

Daschle is a fucking weasel, and I'm thrilled to have his worthless ass back where he belongs, receiving huge, undeserved payments from lobbyists.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Feb 7 2009, 08:33 PM Post #17
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,825
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Feb 6 2009, 04:38 PM
Closing Gitmo..........where will these prisoners go? Is it really a good thing to close Gitmo before you have ANY plans on what to do with the people? You claim it is good..........where do you get that insight? I know, you just wanted change. Doesn't matter if it works, as long as it is change.

Seriously? McCain wanted Gitmo closed as well.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
boilergrad01 Feb 8 2009, 12:37 AM Post #18
Working on the last 5
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#135
Joined:
February 9, 2008
brumdog44
Feb 7 2009, 08:33 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Feb 6 2009, 04:38 PM
Closing Gitmo..........where will these prisoners go? Is it really a good thing to close Gitmo before you have ANY plans on what to do with the people? You claim it is good..........where do you get that insight? I know, you just wanted change. Doesn't matter if it works, as long as it is change.

Seriously? McCain wanted Gitmo closed as well.
Brum,

Trust me they well the super rednecks in South Carolina in the primary lit me up on that everytime. McCain wanting to close Gitmo was one of the things that the "conservatives" would say made him a Liberal.
Nothing beats an Astronaut
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
troubleatiu Feb 8 2009, 12:58 AM Post #19
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
3,218
Group:
Members
Member
#21
Joined:
February 5, 2008
boilergrad01
Feb 8 2009, 12:37 AM
brumdog44
Feb 7 2009, 08:33 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Feb 6 2009, 04:38 PM
Closing Gitmo..........where will these prisoners go? Is it really a good thing to close Gitmo before you have ANY plans on what to do with the people? You claim it is good..........where do you get that insight? I know, you just wanted change. Doesn't matter if it works, as long as it is change.

Seriously? McCain wanted Gitmo closed as well.
Brum,

Trust me they well the super rednecks in South Carolina in the primary lit me up on that everytime. McCain wanting to close Gitmo was one of the things that the "conservatives" would say made him a Liberal.
no, his economics ignorance makes him liberal enough. im glad to see him oppose this stimulus, but his overall record isnt very conservative.
Posted Image
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger
"What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler
"Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Feb 9 2009, 09:28 AM Post #20
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
boilergrad01
Feb 8 2009, 12:37 AM
brumdog44
Feb 7 2009, 08:33 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Feb 6 2009, 04:38 PM
Closing Gitmo..........where will these prisoners go? Is it really a good thing to close Gitmo before you have ANY plans on what to do with the people? You claim it is good..........where do you get that insight? I know, you just wanted change. Doesn't matter if it works, as long as it is change.

Seriously? McCain wanted Gitmo closed as well.
Brum,

Trust me they well the super rednecks in South Carolina in the primary lit me up on that everytime. McCain wanting to close Gitmo was one of the things that the "conservatives" would say made him a Liberal.
does closing a physical location really address the problem? If we are detaining people who shouldn't be detained, then let's address that...what the hell does the location really have to do with good/bad policy? I personally would rather have potentially dangerous people seperated from us by a good stretch of ocean, but that doesn't mean I am in favor of holding people unlawfully. Am I missing something?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Feb 9 2009, 11:11 AM Post #21
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,921
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Feb 9 2009, 09:28 AM
boilergrad01
Feb 8 2009, 12:37 AM
brumdog44
Feb 7 2009, 08:33 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Feb 6 2009, 04:38 PM
Closing Gitmo..........where will these prisoners go? Is it really a good thing to close Gitmo before you have ANY plans on what to do with the people? You claim it is good..........where do you get that insight? I know, you just wanted change. Doesn't matter if it works, as long as it is change.

Seriously? McCain wanted Gitmo closed as well.
Brum,

Trust me they well the super rednecks in South Carolina in the primary lit me up on that everytime. McCain wanting to close Gitmo was one of the things that the "conservatives" would say made him a Liberal.
does closing a physical location really address the problem? If we are detaining people who shouldn't be detained, then let's address that...what the hell does the location really have to do with good/bad policy? I personally would rather have potentially dangerous people seperated from us by a good stretch of ocean, but that doesn't mean I am in favor of holding people unlawfully. Am I missing something?
The Messiah (and liberals in general) prefer symbolism over substance. It's really quite sad.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Feb 9 2009, 11:17 AM Post #22
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,076
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Well I don't think that any prisoners are held in the United States unlawfully. So in this sense the closing of Gitmo does solve the problem. The problem doesn't exist on US soil. The problem IS that this prison is in Cuba and therefore allows us to break the US Constitution.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Feb 9 2009, 11:25 AM Post #23
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Feb 9 2009, 11:17 AM
Well I don't think that any prisoners are held in the United States unlawfully. So in this sense the closing of Gitmo does solve the problem. The problem doesn't exist on US soil. The problem IS that this prison is in Cuba and therefore allows us to break the US Constitution.
dreach, is that really the case? So, if they were transferred to the US, they would instantly gain constitutional liberties?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Feb 9 2009, 11:35 AM Post #24
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,076
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
aaronk2727
Feb 9 2009, 11:25 AM
dreachon
Feb 9 2009, 11:17 AM
Well I don't think that any prisoners are held in the United States unlawfully. So in this sense the closing of Gitmo does solve the problem. The problem doesn't exist on US soil. The problem IS that this prison is in Cuba and therefore allows us to break the US Constitution.
dreach, is that really the case? So, if they were transferred to the US, they would instantly gain constitutional liberties?
I'm assuming they would gain the right to a trial and representation, no?
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
troubleatiu Feb 9 2009, 12:31 PM Post #25
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
3,218
Group:
Members
Member
#21
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Feb 9 2009, 11:25 AM
dreachon
Feb 9 2009, 11:17 AM
Well I don't think that any prisoners are held in the United States unlawfully. So in this sense the closing of Gitmo does solve the problem. The problem doesn't exist on US soil. The problem IS that this prison is in Cuba and therefore allows us to break the US Constitution.
dreach, is that really the case? So, if they were transferred to the US, they would instantly gain constitutional liberties?
thats a good question aaron. why can we hold these people indefinately off-shore? its not just gitmo, weve got navy ships holding some people and "rendition centers" in europe as well. what ive always argued is put them on trial, throw the evidence out in court and go on to the next.
what i suspect, is THERES NO EVIDENCE AGAINST A MAJORITY of these people. its why we dont do it.
Posted Image
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger
"What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler
"Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Feb 9 2009, 01:10 PM Post #26
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
troubleatiu
Feb 9 2009, 12:31 PM
aaronk2727
Feb 9 2009, 11:25 AM
dreachon
Feb 9 2009, 11:17 AM
Well I don't think that any prisoners are held in the United States unlawfully. So in this sense the closing of Gitmo does solve the problem. The problem doesn't exist on US soil. The problem IS that this prison is in Cuba and therefore allows us to break the US Constitution.
dreach, is that really the case? So, if they were transferred to the US, they would instantly gain constitutional liberties?
thats a good question aaron. why can we hold these people indefinately off-shore? its not just gitmo, weve got navy ships holding some people and "rendition centers" in europe as well. what ive always argued is put them on trial, throw the evidence out in court and go on to the next.
what i suspect, is THERES NO EVIDENCE AGAINST A MAJORITY of these people. its why we dont do it.
so, is Dreach's assessment correct in that as long as they aren't on American shore, we don't have to follow American law?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Feb 9 2009, 01:14 PM Post #27
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,076
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
aaronk2727
Feb 9 2009, 01:10 PM
troubleatiu
Feb 9 2009, 12:31 PM
aaronk2727
Feb 9 2009, 11:25 AM
dreachon
Feb 9 2009, 11:17 AM
Well I don't think that any prisoners are held in the United States unlawfully. So in this sense the closing of Gitmo does solve the problem. The problem doesn't exist on US soil. The problem IS that this prison is in Cuba and therefore allows us to break the US Constitution.
dreach, is that really the case? So, if they were transferred to the US, they would instantly gain constitutional liberties?
thats a good question aaron. why can we hold these people indefinately off-shore? its not just gitmo, weve got navy ships holding some people and "rendition centers" in europe as well. what ive always argued is put them on trial, throw the evidence out in court and go on to the next.
what i suspect, is THERES NO EVIDENCE AGAINST A MAJORITY of these people. its why we dont do it.
so, is Dreach's assessment correct in that as long as they aren't on American shore, we don't have to follow American law?
Woah woah woah. Let me just be clear that I DO NOT think that just because they are not on American soil that we do not have to follow American law. I'm saying because they are not on American soil we are not following American law and that's not right.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
troubleatiu Feb 9 2009, 01:26 PM Post #28
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
3,218
Group:
Members
Member
#21
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Feb 9 2009, 01:14 PM
aaronk2727
Feb 9 2009, 01:10 PM
troubleatiu
Feb 9 2009, 12:31 PM
aaronk2727
Feb 9 2009, 11:25 AM
dreachon
Feb 9 2009, 11:17 AM
Well I don't think that any prisoners are held in the United States unlawfully. So in this sense the closing of Gitmo does solve the problem. The problem doesn't exist on US soil. The problem IS that this prison is in Cuba and therefore allows us to break the US Constitution.
dreach, is that really the case? So, if they were transferred to the US, they would instantly gain constitutional liberties?
thats a good question aaron. why can we hold these people indefinately off-shore? its not just gitmo, weve got navy ships holding some people and "rendition centers" in europe as well. what ive always argued is put them on trial, throw the evidence out in court and go on to the next.
what i suspect, is THERES NO EVIDENCE AGAINST A MAJORITY of these people. its why we dont do it.
so, is Dreach's assessment correct in that as long as they aren't on American shore, we don't have to follow American law?
Woah woah woah. Let me just be clear that I DO NOT think that just because they are not on American soil that we do not have to follow American law. I'm saying because they are not on American soil we are not following American law and that's not right.
cosign. its not whether its right, its how it is. its how its allowed to be. understand?
Posted Image
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger
"What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler
"Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 9:33 AM Jul 11
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy