Obama: Can We Have A Be Kind To Terrorists Week?

Yeah, that's what we want in a CIC - a guy who thinks we're to blame for any and every growth in International terrorist numbers and wants to ensure they are all provided with the same due process any American citizen would be. Maybe his wife is so disappointed in America, they'd like to see it get hit, again?

And it is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States, but we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. And there has been no evidence on their part that we can't.

And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, "Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims."

So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

Comments

[moldy]

The virtues of "innocent before proven guilty" is not really up for debate anymore in American society is it?

Not everyone at Guantanamo is guilty. Most probably are. But for the sake of the few innocent ones, due process is neccessary. Why is that a problem?

[templar knight]

Mr. Obama, it seems to me that fighters captured by the military in a foreign country are somewhat different than people who committed crimes in the US. But hey, that's just me. I would like to know what law these fighters are breaking, and what you would charge them with, Mr. Obama. Would one of his poodles who inhabit this blog care to explain?

[SacTownMan]

Hey Dan,

That's the same hack reporter that interveiwed President Bush a couple of weeks back. ABC and/or this guy edited the Presidents answers to make their moonbat talking points.

It was so bad that the White House had to write a letter to ABC news condeming their blatant attempt to frame the discussion and ignore the full answer Bush gave. I wonder if he got that "tingling in his leg" interviewing the "annointed one" like little Chrissy did?

The bottom line is Barry is a pussy! He continues to prove that he has no idea what the hell he's talking about. The terrorist's around the world are licking their chops at the prospect of this panzy being in charge.

We would be better off with his wife as POTUS, now she scares the crap out of me just looking at her!

What is it about Democratic POTUS spouses, first the catchup witch and now Michelle. These are some downright mean-ass bitches!

But hey I'm just another "clingy", "typical" racist!

[SacTownMan]

Hey Knight you must be kidding right? In short order the trolls will be hijacking this thread like they always do.

It's amazing how these asshats continue to linger here like a bad case of the clap.

Woof! Woof!

[jharp]

Good for you, Senator and next President Obama.

Well said.

I guess the wingnuts don't like this quote "we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution" I guess when it comes to imprisoning dark skinned people they believe the constitution can be ignored..

[jharp]

"Maybe his wife is so disappointed in America, they'd like to see it get hit, again?"

And shame on you for an idiotic remark.

You are weakening your position. Anyone with half a brain is well aware no one wants us to get hit again. While your remark may appeal to the 25% ers, the 75% ers are only made more aware that you've got nothing.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

"Mr. Obama, it seems to me that fighters captured by the military in a foreign country are somewhat different than people who committed crimes in the US. But hey, that's just me."

Yes, thankfully how things "seem to be" to you, aren't in reality, how things actually are.

"I would like to know what law these fighters are breaking, and what you would charge them with, Mr. Obama. Would one of his poodles who inhabit this blog care to explain?"

Off the top of my head - crimes commited by presons abroad, triable in U.S. Court:

The Geneva Conventions

The Hague Conventions

U.S. Anti-terrorism laws

International banking and securities laws

Violations of U.S. banking and securities laws

Money laundering

RICO violations

Statutory and common law criminal conspiracy

Murder

Illegal trade in weapons

Violations of U.S. and international tax laws

Violations of U.S. and international customs laws

Violations of U.S. and international immigration laws

Crimes to personal and real property

Kidnapping

Extortion

Hijacking

Piracy

Illegal trade in controlled substances

Etc.

Etc.

[SacTownMan]

Sorry, wrong reporter. The interview I was thinking about was on NBC! How could I put have ABC news in the same gutter as NBC?

Is this the guy that had the Hillary camps panties all in a bunch?

[speedstan]

Moldy, no "due process" is necessary because these people are NOT criminal suspects in the civilian legal system. They are PRISONERS OF WAR, and in most cases ILLEGAL COMBATANTS. Per the Geneva Conventions, these detainees are subject to the MILITARY laws of the detaining power, which would be the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Per the Geneva Conventions, detainees can be held until the cessation of hostilities. NOWHERE in either the Geneva Conventions or the UCMJ are trials or hearings required to justify detaining enemy combatants. The ONLY time such trials or hearings are required is in the event that these individuals are charged with criminal acts - and again, it's not necessary to charge them with anything under these circumstances. You need to educate yourself about the difference between constitutional law under a civilian criminal court system, and military law and the rules of war...

[SacTownMan]

Hey THC abuser you forgot Beastiality! You know those nut jobs like to grab a sheep every now and then.

They are really Baaaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddd!!!!!!!!

[Scrapiron]

Slick Willie used the political, er that is legal system in 1993. He put a blind man and a couple of flunkies in jail and the real enemy immediately started planning the next attack, which happened to occur on 9-11-01. People have short memories but they captured tapes with Osama, or was it Obama, bragging about the 9-11 attack, how it was more successful than they thought it would be, and when they started planning it (1993). Too bad the attack in 1993 failed, it would have taken out a lot more people and from what I see today, out of NY, they wouldn't be missed. One thing for sure, if Hussein O is elected the American people will pay with money and they're lives.

[templar knight]

That's a long list of offenses, Mr. Poodle, but I don't see how a single one on your list applies to a fighter who picks up a rifle and fires it at US troops. What US laws does this break, jerk, since the fighter is in his own country?

I can just see you on a jury where one of these fighters is charged with murdering an American soldier. You vote for the guy to be let off for lack of evidence. What rifle killed said soldier, was this terrorist even holding a rifle, where is the cartridge, how is one of these terrorists to be identified in a firefight, etc...etc...etc? Evidence is almost impossible to gather in the middle of a firefight, you idiot! I can just see it now, "stop shooting, Mr. Terrorist, while I gather your shell casings as evidence that you tried to kill me. Oh, don't fire that RPG because it doesn't leave a ballistic footprint that allows me to tell which launcher fired said RPG." You Lefty guys are just stupid, and so is anyone who would advocate such a ridiculous idea, including Obama.

[bobInStamford]

How dare the brown people fire back!!! They should quietly and graciously accept their LIBERATION - especially from private school alumni! Someone should tell these wicked brown folk that GOD BLESSES America.

[Comrade Red Sheep of Obama]

"--- Hey THC abuser you forgot Beastiality! You know those nut jobs like to grab a sheep every now and then.

They are really Baaaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddd!!!!!!!!

Hey now, don't knock it until you've tried it, right?

[Comrade Red Sheep of Obama]

"--- Good for you, Senator and next President Obama.---"

Yes, let us keep HOPING for a CHANGE, and that Sheikh Obama will be SELECTED as our general secretary..., erm, president, this November.

"--- I guess the wingnuts don't like this quote "we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution" I guess when it comes to imprisoning dark skinned people they believe the constitution can be ignored.. ---"

It always comes back to those little darkies now, doesn't it? I am so glad that Comrade Senator Byrd continues in his work against the black sheeps who keep filling up those bags that go off to Comrade Weaver with their nappy wool.

[Althor]

I wonder if after Obama finished making the above statements he gave his lovely "wallowing in black resentement" wife, Michelle, another one of those victory "terrorist fist jabs" E.D. Hill was talking about, that made "Media Matters" and the far-left snarl and foam rabidly so much at the mouth, that got E.D. Hill in trouble at "sell-out-To-Obama" Fox News!

Of course, it is a moot question since no reporter would dare report on another Obama "terrorist fist jab" lest they also lose their jobs!

Another victory for the "terrorists"...err, I mean "Obama."

Althor

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Yeah, that's what we want in a CIC - a guy who thinks we're to blame for any and every growth in International terrorist numbers and wants to ensure they are all provided with the same due process any American citizen would be. --"

Shorter Dan Riehl: I kan haz eggnorance and kan-gah-roo kourts?!

I AM AWARE OF ALL INTERNET TRADITIONS!

[seekeronos]

"--- I AM AWARE OF ALL INTERNET TRADITIONS! ---"

This would explain you persistent and very slightly annoying use of LOLCATS "leetspeak", no?

[IslamoLlama]

Here's one thing I don't get. The continued objection to due process.

I know, I know. We're Americans. And Americans should be afforded due process because we're blessed by Jesus's magic pixie dust. Meanwhile, scary brown foreigners should be water boarded on sight until they admit they are terrorists. We're familiar with the wingnut MO.

That said, due process exists to separate the innocent from the guilty. Why would we want to hold innocent people in prison? What do we gain? Either the government has evidence to throw these guys away or they don't. Just funnel them through the system and let justice run its course. We bust drug dealers and traffic violators every day with the minimal resources of small town sheriff's offices. Can't the half-trillion dollar a year military handle the job?

Maybe the problem isn't those dastardly liberal SCOTUS justices. Maybe the DoJ and the Pentagon can't line up the legal muscle to bust these guys for jay-walking, much less terrorism. Maybe the legal team of the Bush Administration completely dropped the ball. And now they've got nearly 500 guys who each may or may not be masterminds of anti-American brutality, but they can't sift the wheat from the chaff and their too terrified to let anyone go.

I know this sounds like a stretch, but consider for a second that the Gonzales DoJ and the Ashcroft DoJ before it weren't doing their jobs. If I'm right and it was the Bush legal team that failed to do the leg work to put together a reasonable case, it makes perfect sense that they'd want to deny their suspects all legal recourse. You play to your strengths, and the Bush DoJ would be the weakest card in the Bush Admin's deck.

Of course, if this possibility bore out, you wouldn't be able to play the repeated SCOTUS defeats off as simple Defeatocrat terrorist capitulation. On the contrary, the real capitulators would be the Bush prosecutors who failed in their duty to uphold US and International Law due to their own incompetence. It's Bush's own policies that would be to blame for getting us into our current legal mess.

Of course, this is all just a theory. I'm sure there's a more plausible explanation. Maybe 5 out of 9 SCOTUS justices simply hate America more than they value their own lives at the hands of terrorist radical islamist thugs. Yeah, maybe its that.

[jharp]

"Yes, let us keep HOPING for a CHANGE"

I plan on voting for the man who has pledged to change the failed polices of Bush.

And McCain has promised to continue the same failed policies.

Obama has pledged to change the course on Iraq, health care, and get this, tax cuts for the middle class.

It's a no brainer.

[seekeronos]

Gitmo is an ugly mess at this point.

What should have been done were military tribunals with short suspenses - freedom or hangings/firing squads for the detainees.

Keeping them imprisoned and forgotten about for the rest of their natural lives is too expensive and does deny them due process (either under US civil law or military courts-martial/tribunals). To the Bushites, it seemed like a good idea, but as ideas went, it rather fell flat as Gitmo refused to be forgotten about.

However, the SCOTUS has ruled on the matter, and unless the Congress strips the SCOTUS of jurisdiction in the matter (which is extremely unlikely, given the Democratic majority and enough RiNOS to ensure it would never pass), what needs to happen now is trials in US courts when writs of Habeas Corpus are approved.

Unless Bush/DoJ decides to class them as POWs with the rights that carries under the GCs and LoAC, but I do not see that happening either.

It will be a problem for Obama or McCain to solve, and I foresee that under any of these men, most of the Gitmo detainees will go free, if not also "compensated", with potentially disastrous effects down the line.

But let justice be done, and God shall be the final judge, no?

[redherkey]

Oh god... the little puppet is just plain stupid. Geez Soros... couldn't you recruit anything better than this ghetto-poseur step-up from trash? Don't you vet the basics? Damn, you're as blind as the bozos that follow you.

Soros and his Elmer Fudd missteps aside, this is very bad news for Harvard. Have they started investigating how this less than mediocre hack managed to graduate from their institution? My 4.0, top regional scholar son had visited the Harvard campus and had ideas of applying but tonight we were talking about what kind of people go there and from what we've seen, they're more interested in politically correct but mentally challenged trust fund children and special case minorities, rather than exceptional scholars. While it's nice to see the slow learners can get decent jobs and fancy degrees if daddy contributes enough to the endowment fund, I'm not sure Harvard wanted to let them attain it at the damage to their brand.

This is more than gaffe. The guy just can't talk intelligently unless he's got someone elses words to read from. Supporting Barack is like putting the retarded kid up for Prom King... cruel and unethical treatment.

[jharp]

seeker,

"I foresee that under any of these men, most of the Gitmo detainees will go free"

What makes you say that? Are you saying there is not enough evidence to hold them?

Either you have little faith in the judgment of those imprisoning these men or don't understand our legal system.

Habeas corpus is simply to determine if there is enough evidence to hold them. It's not a trial. And if there is not enough evidence to hold them shouldn't they be set free?

[seekeronos]

jharp, my understanding of the situation of most of the Gitmo detainees is that they were captured in the conduct of (para)military operations against US forces operating in Iraq and A'stan.

As such, they were designated as "unlawful enemy combatants", with justification coming from these operatives' lack of status under 4th GC Sect. IV as being outside the classes of combatants normally accorded POW status upon capture.

Most of these men, as I am lead to believe, are stateless terrorist actors.

Some have rather unusual circumstances (such as the fellow who was a US-friendly operative captured in the wrong place, wrong time while under orders doing something for the US/Afghan governments. Something tells me that if his situation is true, some phone calls should have been made hours after his capture, and he should have been on his merry way, providing that his cover wasn't blown.

Another case involves someone getting snatched off a bus whilst he was enroute to see his relatives.

So yes, I now think that this item (Gitmo) has been massively bungled, and am afraid that as the truth emerges, it will give us a black eye of the likes we will not recover from for quite some time.

As a former USAF myself, I think that the LoAC should have been followed, and in a timely manner. Either class these people as POWs and hold them with all the process and rights the GCs afford, or summarily execute them in the field as unlawful enemy combatants under the provisions of the GCs since they are not state actors or even organized as a rebel militia, but are for all practical purposes, odd civilians roving around with firearms in league with terrorist cells.

Holding these men for as long as they have been held without inquiry as to their status, purpose, or ascertainment of innocence or guilt per LoAC and tribunal hearings may not be expressly forbidden by the Constitution, but it goes against the grain of who we are as a people, to detain them without any sort of trial or justice at great taxpayer cost.

I do not believe that God will honour this, nor does it set a precedent for what could - and perhaps did - come to pass for US citizens who find themselves on the wrong side of the sitting president.

Perhaps after reflection I have had something of a change of heart, but not for the sake of the terrorists or their agenda; rather, I wish that justice be dispensed fairly and speedily, as is the mandate of our Constitution.

As to the judgment of those responsible for keeping the Gitmo inmates imprisoned, I question their judgment to the degree that some of them (I am watching the C-SPAN coverage of a Congressional inquiry on the treatment of Gitmo inmates now as a matter of fact) are sandbagging now to keep their jobs.

It smells fishy, and fish and house guests do after so many days, as the venerable Mr. B. Franklin once said, they both stinketh.

[seekeronos]

And to answer your more immediate question, I believe that both Obama and McCain have indicated that they will move to close down Gitmo.

If I am incorrect in that understanding, I am certain that you will reveal that to me. :)

[Althor]

Quote: "Gitmo is an ugly mess at this point."

Obama has spoken! Hear, O Ye mortals (with common sense) and despair! Obama says going after terrorists is a job for “Law Enforcement” and not our military.

Obama proposes, we should go after those who planned a terrorist attack on the US - after the fact, of course, since we need the dead bodies and the rubble as evidence because according to the "Habeas Corpus" now granted presumptive terrorists, you cannot put on trial an
"innocent" terrorist, who has not committed an act of terrorism yet, solely on the presumption he "may carry out a terrorist attack" - all we need to do is send a couple of FBI agents and N.Y. Detectives with Warrants into the Al-Qaeda caves and hideouts in Afghanistan to arrest the suspects and bring them back to indict them. Of course, the terrorists will be read their “Miranda Rights” - in their native language or dialect - as they are being arrested in the field - and to ensure their rights are not violated, they will be provided Lawyers immediately upon being arrested in the Karakoram Mountains, at taxpayer expense of course (the lawyers will accompany the Law Enforcement entourage when they go arrest someone), and a New York Times “commie” correspondent will be at hand, as an independent observer, to act as a “watchdog.”

Then when Al-Qaeda gracefully complies and hands us the suspects in Afghanistan - as per those "Warrants" we sent our Law Enforcement Officers, lawyers, and NYT correspondent with - they will be speedily flown “First Class” be transferred to an American prison specially designed to meet their ethnic dietary, and cultural, Muslim, needs, which should be appropriately called the "Obama Hilton,"

Said facility will provide all the "creature comforts” it is a terrorist’s right to have, such as "Goldilocks Accomodations" - rooms not too cold, not too hot, but just right; feather mattresses not too firm, not too soft, but just right; clean stainless steel toilets and wash basins; three square "Halal" meals a day; five calls to prayer in Arabic through speakers all over the facility, as well as Korans, Prayer Rugs, and Prayer Beads will be provided to the inmates ; a recreation area where they can exercise and even play basketball, and tennis; and an Entertainment Center with a large screen TV playing Arabic language programming - even propagandist Al Jazeera...but wait, oh no, dear me! I forgot such a facility already exists - it is called “Guantanamo”! Ahhh!

Yes, I agree. Guantanamo is a mess! How about sending these sons-of-bitches to prisons like the ones we sentence regular American criminals to, instead of giving these terrorists so many "creature comforts" and "special accomodations"! A cell with a hole on the floor they can piss and shit in should suffice.

Althor

[jharp]

"my understanding of the situation of most of the Gitmo detainees is that they were captured in the conduct of (para)military operations against US forces operating in Iraq and A'stan."

You are mistaken. And this is exactly the type of issue that would be addressed by a writ of habeas corpus.

"they were designated as "unlawful enemy combatants",

You continue to ignore the key issue. Who designates them as "unlawful enemy combatants". That is specifically what the entire debate is about.

Patriotic Americans who believe in the rule of law don't believe the President gets to decide.

The United States Supreme Court has just confirmed that that is the law.

[seekeronos]

"--- You continue to ignore the key issue. Who designates them as "unlawful enemy combatants". That is specifically what the entire debate is about. ---"

That is actually quite my point: The POTUS simply used that designation "unlawful enemy combatant" to put a label on a class of prisoner that had previously had no legal designation.

That is to say, these detainees were mostly captured during combat operations against US forces. Under ordinary circumstances, were we fighting a national professional armed force of an enemy nation with whom we were at war, or helping a nation suppress its insurgents, those persons captured would be detained until the cessation of hostilities under Geneva Conventions and other applicable LoAC provisions as POWs.

Seeing as there has been no legitimate declaration of war (a very big sticking point for a paleoconservative such as myself) but rather, some degrees of UN resolutions as well as presidential strong-arming of the government, we captured all sorts of Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives who were most certainly engaging combat operations against us, as well -- since A-Q and the Taliban are neither a government or a state, they can hardly be signatories to any of the GCs, and since they largely function in cell structures, they operate outside of the LoAC (Laws of Armed Conflict) observed by most national armed forces.

You might even qualify most of these detainees as mercenaries in the sense that they have provided their military skills for compensation (either a direct payout from A-Q, or remuneration to their surviving family for the suicide bombers, and of course, the promise of 72 virgins and eternity with their moon-demon, Allah.

These detainees' legal status as combatants most certainly falls outside the norm, especially since Bush refused to class them as POWs, and has apparently decided not to have tribunals inquire as to their guilt or innocence for any significant number of them (we don't do the summary executions as they don't sit well with the accountability chain, and martyring a whole pile of them would likely be received the completely wrong way by the Islamosphere anyway... and so they continue to rot in Gitmo.

So, as I see it, the POTUS (Bush) used the "unlawful enemy combatant" designation to (a) put a legal name on who these detainees are in terms of LoAC and the GCs and (b) it allowed him to detain these men indefinitely without trials in our courts, or at least it did until last week.

The SCOTUS ruling invalidates the POTUS's ability to detain the Gitmo prisoners (specifically) without habeas corpus, and indirectly rebukes the POTUS for holding them and designating as "unlawful enemy combatants".

That is quite the problem indeed for the folks at Gitmo, and especially their captors: while it is not a court order to set them free per se, nor does it order them to be given trials in US criminal court (the jurisdiction issues for this are themselves staggeringly difficult, even if the cases originate in federal district courts).

This leaves at least two other existing and historical designations for these detainees: either they are captured POWs, or they are criminal suspects detained under civil and possibly international law.

Classing them as POWs would be easier in terms of how to treat them (triable under courts-martial and military tribunals outside the US civil court system would be easiest, except for details that would certainly emerge on the captive treatment of these detainees to include almost certain allegations of torture (waterboarding, stress positions, etc.) which may seriously hurt our standing in the world community for failing to holding them as POWs under GCs and international LoAC.

The other option would be to class them as civil cases to be tried in US courts, which aggravates questions of jurisdiction (do we really have the right to convict a non-citizen accused of a crime committed on foreign soil not subject to US laws?) And uncomfortable questions of their treatment at Gitmo would still arise.

Lastly, we could refer them to UN tribunals or to the ICC (International Criminal Court) which we decided not to become signatory to, as we did not like the thought of foreign nations interfering with our sovereignty -- and rightly so, I shall add.

In short, there is no pleasant way out of this, and short of "closing down" Gitmo and moving the detainees out of US hands (moving them to foreign contractor facilities off shore and definitely out of US jurisdiction) where the detainees could be permanently "disappeared". Especially if that contractor prison were to be found suddenly in A'stan, the original jurisdiction for most of the detainees, where they might be freed or made to face copper-jacketed justice.

I am not saying that I advocate such a highly shaded solution, but given Bush has about seven months left in office, he might be willing to try something like that.

[jharp]

"That is to say, these detainees were mostly captured during combat operations against US forces."

Mostly could mean 51% and I don't know the number but many (most?) were bought.

[SacTownMan]

Barry is right, these guys should all have the same rights as American citizens. They are just confused and need our love and understanding.

I propose that we immediately shut down Gitmo and transfer all of these guys into various prison facilities around the US. I understand they is room at various institutions located in New York.

That way these guys could have all of the same benefits as our own citizens.

The right to mix with the local prison population.

The right to be raped and sodomized on a consistant and on-going basis.

The right to have a 6" shank shoved in their neck.

The right to a "Columbian Necktie"

The right to be killed in as gastlly of a way as the resident prison population can come-up with.

Let's get going on this. I now realize that the moonbats with their twisted sense of right and wrong may have stumbled on a real solution to the problem.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- So yes, I now think that this item (Gitmo) has been massively bungled, and am afraid that as the truth emerges, it will give us a black eye of the likes we will not recover from for quite some time.

As a former USAF myself, I think that the LoAC should have been followed, and in a timely manner. Either class these people as POWs and hold them with all the process and rights the GCs afford, or summarily execute them in the field as unlawful enemy combatants under the provisions of the GCs since they are not state actors or even organized as a rebel militia, but are for all practical purposes, odd civilians roving around with firearms in league with terrorist cells.

Holding these men for as long as they have been held without inquiry as to their status, purpose, or ascertainment of innocence or guilt per LoAC and tribunal hearings may not be expressly forbidden by the Constitution, but it goes against the grain of who we are as a people, to detain them without any sort of trial or justice at great taxpayer cost.

I do not believe that God will honour this, nor does it set a precedent for what could - and perhaps did - come to pass for US citizens who find themselves on the wrong side of the sitting president. --"

This is what the Dirty Fucking Hippies have been saying for the last seven and a half years. But thank you for catching up with the times.

The real problem isn't even Gitmo. It was the symptom of a Pentagon and a DoJ that didn't know what it was doing and was too lazy to come up with legal alternatives. This is, more than ideology or issues-politics or voting records or public speaking skills, the reason the GOP is going to get its rear handed to it in the Fall. People don't trust Republicans to run the government in anything resembling a competent manor. It's going to put the conservative movement out in the desert for the next ten or twenty or forty years. And its not really great for the country as a whole. But, given the way the party has been acting, it's necessary to lance the festering wound.

Whatever may be said of Richard Nixon, the guy knew how to run a government without running it into the ground. Reagen could meet ideological goals and cut politically savy deals without repeated threats to shut down the government. But the Bush Administration has failed at administrating, and that's not something America will forgive for a long while.

[seekeronos]

"--- People don't trust Republicans to run the government in anything resembling a competent manor. It's going to put the conservative movement out in the desert for the next ten or twenty or forty years. And its not really great for the country as a whole. But, given the way the party has been acting, it's necessary to lance the festering wound. ---"

If this bears true, that the Democraticic victory is all but a fait accompli, then America will be in for a wild and discomfiting Socialist ride: If Bush carried the country three degrees to the right, Obama and the socialist wing of the Democraticic party will carry it nineteen degrees left.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- If Bush carried the country three degrees to the right, Obama and the socialist wing of the Democraticic party will carry it nineteen degrees left. --"

MATHS! I CAN HAZ THEM?

[seekeronos]

Pardon me whilst I step out of character for a moment to address the latest harebrained response from Islamamoe:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Moe, you no can haz teh maths!!

But you can haz not st00pid speaking pattern.

Ceiling Cat sez you shud make repents, so you no go to Basement after you are teh deds.

[BobInStamford]

I think that the resident Jesus Otaku should stick to fairy tales about flying demons and 1,000 year old men.

[seekeronos]

"--- the resident Jesus Otaku ---"

Why thanks for the compliment, Bob. How very rare of you.

[Islamollama]

"-- Moe, you no can haz teh maths!! --"

Ok. So long as we're playing without math. I just want you to know that I'm not voting for John McCain because while Obama will take the country 19 degree to the left, John McCain will take us 40 knotts south by southwest. Furthermore, Obama is 12 Ohmns more competent, 86 grams more experienced, and 106 kilowatts better looking.

Just to put things in perspective.

And don't even get me started on Chuck Balwin. He's gigaflops removed from Obama.
http://failblog.org/epic-math-fail/
See my notes.