Democrats SURRENDER....

Yurt said:
the dems said THEY DO NOT WANT THEM IN THE USOFA

obama said he did

hmmmmmm, IOW....better plan equals take a hike moron and don't bring them here :cof1:
Click to expand...

and when the president DOES detail his plan more completely, and the democrats then vote FOR The funding, will YOU eat the plate of crow that will be served up to you?

I doubt it.

your pomposity knows even fewer bounds than your hypocrisy.
 
maineman said:
and when the president DOES detail his plan more completely, and the democrats then vote FOR The funding, will YOU eat the plate of crow that will be served up to you?

I doubt it.

your pomposity knows even fewer bounds than your hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with even Dungheap's belief that the Demcrats gave in to political pressure in this vote?
 
cawacko said:
So you disagree with even Dungheap's belief that the Demcrats gave in to political pressure in this vote?
Click to expand...

I disagree with YURT's assertion that democrats do not want detainees in America. I believer that, when the administration provides a comprehensive and detailed plan as to where the detainees will go and how they will be handled, that the democrats in the senate will provide the funding for that plan.
 
Hmm when Bush was president the right called this type of thing bipartisanship now it is surrender?
 
Whomever said:
Hmm when Bush was president the right called this type of thing bipartisanship now it is surrender?
Click to expand...


Was it not a big point during the elections and while Bush was in office for Democrats wanting to close Gitmo? Now they have the power and the opportunity and didn't do it due to current political pressure.

I can't think of one off the top of my head but I know Republicans did it too so do you have an example during Bush's eight years where Republicans ran on an issue and then when that issue came to vote in Congress the Republicans voted against it and claimed it was a bi-partisan defeat?
 
maineman said:
and when the president DOES detail his plan more completely, and the democrats then vote FOR The funding, will YOU eat the plate of crow that will be served up to you?

I doubt it.

your pomposity knows even fewer bounds than your hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
If they do not because Obama foolishly decides he wants them in the US, will you do the same?

This is something I agree with them on. There is already a facility that can handle them. That it holds special meaning to the D party notwithstanding, it does not take a move to someplace else in order to change policy on treatment of prisoners, or even of how the trials are held.

It is notable that even Obama started back with tribunals... I think these people will be in GITMO for some time longer, and that it is a waste of money and resources to move them because of political whimsy.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Has anyone mentioned yet that the Democrats voted against this to get the president to detail the plan better?
Click to expand...
Do you read past the first paragraph of any story? You pretty much see the talking point in the story and stop there...

This was well illustrated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s seemingly contradictory comments following a Democratic caucus luncheon Tuesday. Reid said that closing Guantanamo was the right decision but “We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.” Asked next, if he could see a day when Guantanamo detainees might be transferred to prisons on American soil, Reid refused to clarify his remarks. “We don’t want them around,” he said.
Click to expand...

Please note that he was pretty clear on what "we" (his party) wants and it isn't just more detailed plans, they "don't want them around," he said...
 
Would it be against immigration laws to bring them here?

esp since they are not prisionors of war. But enemy combatants.
 
Harry Reid is an idiot. He was OK as a minority leader but he sucks ass as a majority leader. I can't wait for the people of Nevada to vote him out of office. He says he thinks it is the right thing to do to close GITMO but that terrorists should not be brought to the US. That's just about incoherent.

He wants to go back to Wallbrook and stay with Charlie Babbitt.
 
Harry is chief wuss in charge and him gone would be the best thing for dems.
Dems are afraid of the cons using the soft on crime bat against them on the campaign trail. To say they are running scared of republicans would be an understatement. But it's hillarious. Will someone tell Reid they are in control now.
 
maineman said:
I disagree with YURT's assertion that democrats do not want detainees in America. I believer that, when the administration provides a comprehensive and detailed plan as to where the detainees will go and how they will be handled, that the democrats in the senate will provide the funding for that plan.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about that. There was a pretty good 'not in our backyard' backlash from the public on this issue. These are spineless politicians we are talking about. Somehow I find it hard to beleive they are going to be moving the remaining prisoners from GITMO into the States.
 
Dungheap said:
Harry Reid is an idiot. He was OK as a minority leader but he sucks ass as a majority leader. I can't wait for the people of Nevada to vote him out of office. He says he thinks it is the right thing to do to close GITMO but that terrorists should not be brought to the US. That's just about incoherent.

He wants to go back to Wallbrook and stay with Charlie Babbitt.
Click to expand...

good luck with that... I would like nothing more than to see that idiot gone.
 
This was a few years back but my buddy who lives in Las Vegas, his mom was appointed twice by Bush to government positions, is a die hard Republican and he voted for Harry Reid because he said Reid did well for the state of Nevada. Obviously this is purely antedotal and I don't know if my friend would vote for him again and I don't know what Reid's Nevada poll numbers look like but it was shocking to me.
 
cawacko said:
This was a few years back but my buddy who lives in Las Vegas, his mom was appointed twice by Bush to government positions, is a die hard Republican and he voted for Harry Reid because he said Reid did well for the state of Nevada. Obviously this is purely antedotal and I don't know if my friend would vote for him again and I don't know what Reid's Nevada poll numbers look like but it was shocking to me.
Click to expand...


Thankfully, his poll numbers in Nevada look like shit:

CARSON CITY -- Nearly half of Nevadans have had enough of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as the powerful Democrat heads into his re-election campaign, a new Las Vegas Review-Journal poll finds.

About a third of the state's voters would re-elect Reid if the 2010 election were held today, according to the poll, but 45 percent say they would definitely vote to replace him. Seventeen percent would consider another candidate.

The findings are echoed by another poll question about Reid's popularity that finds the four-term incumbent to be a polarizing figure in his home state.

Half of Nevada voters had an unfavorable view of Reid, while 38 percent had a favorable view and 11 percent a neutral opinion.
Click to expand...

http://www.lvrj.com/news/45387987.html


The trouble is that Harry Reid probably thinks that in order to get his numbers to go up he'll have to appease the "moderates." That may well be true, I don't know, but that's not what you want from a majority leader.
 
Dungheap said:
Thankfully, his poll numbers in Nevada look like shit:



http://www.lvrj.com/news/45387987.html


The trouble is that Harry Reid probably thinks that in order to get his numbers to go up he'll have to appease the "moderates." That may well be true, I don't know, but that's not what you want from a majority leader.
Click to expand...

My only issue with polls like that are don't they look worse for the incumbent when there is no name or actual person they are running against?

I understand the mindset when asked the question (paraphrasing) 'do you like Harry Reid or the job he's doing etc?' People may say no. But all of a sudden the question is 'do you like Harry Reid or Joe Blow?' and the person may say I don't particulary like Harry Reid but I really don't like Joe Blow so I'll stick with Harry.
 
cawacko said:
My only issue with polls like that are don't they look worse for the incumbent when there is no name or actual person they are running against?

I understand the mindset when asked the question (paraphrasing) 'do you like Harry Reid or the job he's doing etc?' People may say no. But all of a sudden the question is 'do you like Harry Reid or Joe Blow?' and the person may say I don't particulary like Harry Reid but I really don't like Joe Blow so I'll stick with Harry.
Click to expand...


True. That sort of thing is particularly a problem with the "generic ballot," but as a general matter it isn't promising to have a plurality saying that they would vote for someone else (45%) or consider an alternative (17%) and the majority leader shouldn't be looking over his shoulder all the time.
 
I am very disapointed. When will the Democratic party take a cue from Obama and grow a spine?
 
cawacko said:
Was it not a big point during the elections and while Bush was in office for Democrats wanting to close Gitmo? Now they have the power and the opportunity and didn't do it due to current political pressure.

I can't think of one off the top of my head but I know Republicans did it too so do you have an example during Bush's eight years where Republicans ran on an issue and then when that issue came to vote in Congress the Republicans voted against it and claimed it was a bi-partisan defeat?
Click to expand...

Did not bush run on smaller government , balanced budget, Not beiing into nation building, etc
 
Whomever said:
Did not bush run on smaller government , balanced budget, Not beiing into nation building, etc
Click to expand...

While usually a Republican mainstay I don't recall him running on smaller government. NCLB was a big campaign issue of his and one of the first legislation he passed and that was not a smaller government program.

As far as budget deficits he got reemed by fiscal conservatives for his outragous spending. So I'm not sure how that makes your claim to be "bi-partisan". Fiscal conservatives may have also screamed at Democrats but with Bush and a Republican Congress it was in their hands to control and they failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top