Re: Here are some facts about the debt and the deficit and Bush and Obama

I would agree with everything you say, except I keep getting this
picture in my mind of an American citizen going to Uzbekistan to visit
his dying grandmother and then is accused of being a terrorist by some
incompetent, or overly ambitious agent and is locked away with no
rights for a trial or appeal for the rest of his life, or at least
until another president is elected. Being an American citizen is and
should be a big deal that makes each one of us very important. Many
men have died to give us the freedoms we have and I don't want to give
those up just because someone points at you and calls you a terrorist.

On May 30, 10:10 am, "Tom" <boldsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes and no.  If such US citizen was involved in a terrorist plot in the USA
> such as Jose Padilla was and is apprehended in the US then he should
> maintain those rights granted to a citizen.  If, on the other hand, he went
> to another country and fought for a foreign power whether a state or an
> organization such as AL Qaeda or in a foreign military then, in my opinion
> and as it was prior to WWII, he has effectively renounced his citizenship
> and is placed into the same category as other combatants of that enemy, be
> they lawful or unlawful combatants.  The fact that many US citizens went to
> Canada to fight against the AXIS early and before the US entered the War
> threw off the earlier renouncement of citizenship.  In any case Johnny
> Walker Lindh was given the rights of any American citizen which was, I
> believe, unjust.  Al Awlaki was not afforded those rights, nor should he
> have been IMO, and was a legitimate subject for targeted assassination by
> drone in 2011.
>
> Tom
>
> "Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money,
> The Shit has hit the Fan"
> "Hiding in Honduras"
> - Warren Zevon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>
> [mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mg
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:59 PM
> To: Open Debate Political Forum IMHO
> Subject: Re: Here are some facts about the debt and the deficit and Bush and
> Obama
>
> Should a U.S. citizen lose his rights as a U.S. citizen if he becomes a
> detainee?
>
> On May 29, 12:20 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > detainees are NOT entitled to the rights, privileges, and protections
> > of a US Citizen, irrespective of the feelings of those on the left.
> > ---
> > terrorists should expect to be tortured
>
> > On May 29, 12:33 pm, "Tom" <boldsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >         It was noted by many.  In effect it really gives detainees
> > > the status of Prisoners of War which may be detained
> > > indefinitely...until the cessation of hostilities or until
> > > repatriated to their home nations.  It also indicates that as such
> > > they would receive the same protections as any POWs are entitled to
> > > under the 3rd Geneva Convention of 1949. The only trials and
> > > tribunals authorized for such individuals are those authorized for
> > > crimes committed during captivity or for war crimes.  Most POWs are
> > > not subjected to trials which is a good thing.  During the early
> > > part of the Global War on Terror, Bush had determined that the
> > > stateless and illegal combatants we call terrorists would be treated
> > > as POWs and that persisted until the left raised their objections
> > > and demanded trials for them, in effect placing them into the
> > > illegal combatant category once again and per that same Geneva
> Convention were entitled to NO rights.  In other words their captors could
> do with them as they wished.  He did them a favor.
> > > Unfortunately the left myopically and as is traditional for them had
> > > no understanding of the consequences of their demands. One thing is
> > > clear and that is that detainees are NOT entitled to the rights,
> > > privileges, and protections of a US Citizen, irrespective of the
> > > feelings of those on the left.
>
> > > Tom
>
> > > "Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money,
> > > The Shit has hit the Fan"
> > > "Hiding in Honduras"
> > > - Warren Zevon
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com
>
> > > [mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mg
> > > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 10:18 PM
> > > To: Open Debate Political Forum IMHO
> > > Subject: Re: Here are some facts about the debt and the deficit and
> > > Bush and Obama
>
> > > Here's something that's very disturbing, incidentally, and I can't
> > > understand how something so outrageous could become law without
> > > anyone
> > > noticing:
>
> > > "US judge blocks indefinite military detention provision updated
> > > 5/16/2012
> > > 5:49:40 PM ET
>
> > > NEW YORK (Reuters) - A judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a
> > > recently enacted law's provision that authorizes indefinite military
> > > detention for those deemed to have "substantially supported" al
> > > Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces."
>
> > > District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan ruled in favor of a
> > > group of civilian activists and journalists who said they feared
> > > being detained under a section of the law, which was signed by U.S.
> > > President Barack Obama in December 2011.
>
> > > "In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due
> > > process requires more," the judge said.
>
> > > She added that it was in the public interest to reconsider the law
> > > so that "ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of
> > > conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."
> > > [. . .]
>
> > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47452408/ns/us_news/t/us-judge-blocks-ind...
> > > -military-detention-provision/#.T8Q_FVJTCHs
>
> > > On May 28, 7:08 pm, EARL DOYLE <lesjul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > i was/am still wondering why Obama hasn't done rebuilding bridges
> > > > and such, i assume he's going to
>
> > > > i still like his patience and timing while he's being criticized
> > > > heavily
>
> > > > economy wise to me he's perfection but he's too conservative when
> > > > it comes to law, he wants individuals to have less rights, big no
> > > > no for me
>
> > > > i demand individuals have more rights than the feds
>
> > > > i believe for the first time in our history the feds have more
> > > > rights than us
>
> > > > and it's all about the law, great laws great country
>
> > > > On 5/28/12, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I know there have been some congressional proposals to amend
> > > > > TARP, but I don't know if any of them have passed. It seems like
> > > > > I remember something about the idea of converting the money owed
> > > > > to the government to common stock, but I don't know if that ever
> happened.
>
> > > > > One can get lost quickly and not be able to see the forest for
> > > > > the trees when talking about a fantasy Obama spree. The question
> > > > > I have been asking right wingers for a long time now, though, is
> > > > > to tell me specifically where he spent all that money if they
> > > > > believe he has been on a spending spree, and of course they
> > > > > never can, except for blaming the stimulus for everything.
>
> > > > > On May 28, 4:25 pm, EARL DOYLE <lesjul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> MG, Obama made an amendment to TARP
>
> > > > >> On 5/28/12, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was signed into law
> > > > >> > by George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. Obama didn't become
> > > > >> > president
> > > until Jan.
> > > > >> > 20, 2009.
>
> > > > >> > On May 28, 12:12 pm, jgg1000a <jgg1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> Tarp was a joint product of Bush and Obama...
>
> > > > >> >> On May 26, 5:02 pm, lynn...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> > Lew evidently has some memory problems...TARP and the
> > > > >> >> > early stimulus packages were BUSH initiatives, just a
> > > > >> >> > NAFTA belonged to
> > > his daddy.
> > > > >> >> > L
>
> > > > >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> >> > From: mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
> > > > >> >> > To: Open Debate Political Forum IMHO
> > > > >> >> > <opendebateforum@googlegroups.com>
> > > > >> >> > Sent: Sat, May 26, 2012 11:34 am
> > > > >> >> > Subject: Re: Here are some facts about the debt and the
> > > > >> >> > deficit and Bush and Obama
>
> > > > >> >> > As I said in my original post, most economists agree that
> > > > >> >> > the one-time spending for the stimulus was necessary and
>
> > > beneficial.http://www.advisorone.com/2012/02/17/the-stimulus-three-y
> > > ears-on-
> > > did-...
>
> > > > >> >> > In addition, the consensus among nonideological economists
> > > > >> >> > is that the measures taken by Obama and the Federal
> > > > >> >> > Reserve prevented the recession from becoming worse or
> > > > >> >> > even turning into a second Great
>
> > > Depression.http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/fact-check-
> > > romney-o
> > > n-th...
>
> > > > >> >> > On May 26, 5:08 am, lew <lewc...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > Bush is not running for president.
>
> > > > >> >> > > Obama solved nothing and the country became worse under
> Obama.
>
> > > > >> >> > > TIME FOR A CHANGE !
>
> > > > >> >> > > On May 26, 3:47 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> > > > The costs ballooned before Obama took office. As I
> > > > >> >> > > > said, the CBO estimated that the deficit for fiscal
> > > > >> >> > > > year 2009
> > > > >> >> > > > (10/1/2008 -
> > > > >> >> > > > 9/30/2009) would be $1.2 trillion before Obama was
> > > > >> >> > > > even sworn in as
>
> > > president.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/ju
> > > l/27/bar
> > > ack...
>
> > > > >> >> > > > If you look at the graph at the following website, you
> > > > >> >> > > > can see exactly what caused the $1.2 trillion deficit
> > > > >> >> > > > in 2009 and subsequent years.
> > > > >> >> > > > Note that for 2009 a lot of it was because of the
> > > > >> >> > > > economic crash and the TARP bailout. Here's a quote
> > > > >> >> > > > from the referenced article:
>
> > > > >> >> > > > "The recession battered the budget, driving down tax
> > > > >> >> > > > revenues and swelling outlays for unemployment
> > > > >> >> > > > insurance, food stamps, and other safety-net
> > > > >> >> > > > programs.[3] Using CBO's August 2008 projections as a
> > > > >> >> > > > benchmark, we calculate that the changed economic
> > > > >> >> > > > outlook alone accounts for over $400 billion of the
> > > > >> >> > > > deficit each year in 2009 through 2011 and slightly
> smaller amounts in subsequent years.
> > > > >> >> > > > Those
> > > > >> >> > > > effects persist; even in 2018, the deterioration in
> > > > >> >> > > > the
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en