posted July 05, 2012 01:43 PM            

quote:

---

There is more than just Carl Levin's testimony indicating that Obama explicitly requested that language be put in the NDAA to specify Americans' eligibility for preventive detention.

---

There isn't. If there were, you could prove it. Read the article I posted. Also, consider assigning Obama's motive in inadequately defending the NDAA in court.
http://www.politicususa.com/reality-obama-ndaa-signing-statement.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-signs-defense-bill-pledges-to-maintain-legal-rights-of-terror-suspects/2011/12/31/gIQATzbkSP_story.html

Read on.

quote:

---

But she is explicitly in favor of preventive detention. That is, incarcerating people forever for NO CRIME, with NO TRIAL and NO CHARGES.

---

posted July 05, 2012 01:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Wise of you to do so, Ami.

I am new here and will try just a little while longer, to say I gave it a fair shot.

---

I am enjoying watching your efforts, Faith!
I came here to support the people who were making sense like Jwhop. I don't really enjoy talking about politics or religion.

I like to support the people who are getting the good points( in my opinion) across like Jwhop, Amelia, Ian and Randall. You seem to be in that same group, as well.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 05, 2012 01:58 PM            

quote:

---

Some statistics, I would believe, but I would have to TRUST the group gathering them such as Frank Luntz, for example.

---

I get that. I have to do the same thing. I have to verify the accuracy of what is being promoted as accurate. That's what I do with Jwhop, that's what I'm doing with Faith, and that's what I'd do with you if you were to actually try to debate something here.

posted July 05, 2012 02:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Ami, there's no point in saying "with all due respect" if you're not going to be respectful. I trust facts, and not all facts are statistics. You can't find an opposite stat for every stat I come up with. If you could, you or one of the people you believe in could cite as much, but you don't, and neither do they. I also talk about principles. The whole reason I hold my positions is based upon principle. My primary principle with regard to politics is that people ought to view it with a realistic and practical eye. When I see speculation I try to sort it out.

I get that. I have to do the same thing. I have to verify the accuracy of what is being promoted as accurate. That's what I do with Jwhop, that's what I'm doing with Faith, and that's what I'd do with you if you were to actually try to debate something here.

Whether I ever took a statistics course or not has zero bearing on this. I've seen the games people play, and I have a keen ability to spot the illogical and the spun. That's the reason Faith and I are having this conversation. I could have left her to her opinion, but I'd rather make her take a look at what the reality is. If you're going to be into politics, I think that's great, I just think they ought to also be informed.

---

We will have to agree to disagree. I think you can't see what is right in front of your face. You think I am rigid. There is no place to go with this, as I hate to argue for the fun of it, because it is no fun for me. It is highly annoying.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 05, 2012 02:14 PM            

It's super easy to look into whether a person's ideas or beliefs are accurate. There's really no reason not to.

posted July 05, 2012 04:00 PM            

Here is the crux of the issue:

"This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals."

The President is arrogating to the Executive Branch the power to imprison and assassination anyone he wants, anywhere in the world, without due process.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/singleton/

If you think all this talk about "preventive detention" from all walks of life from Rachel Maddow to the ACLU to Russia Today is just one silly misunderstanding....again, your prerogative.

But you haven't given shown that you actually have a substantial reason for disbelieving it. Instead, you offer your "suspicions" about this and that.

So what can anyone say? "Be content in your dreamworld. Enjoy."

posted July 05, 2012 04:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I can see anything that's thoughtfully offerred. I don't see you as rigid so much as I see you as lazy. Being right about something affords you the right to be rigid to some degree, because you can prove that you are in fact right. If you can't or won't present why you're right (what you call arguing), then no one can know if you are really right, because you're hiding your knowledge behind a curtain of non-engagement.

It's super easy to look into whether a person's ideas or beliefs are accurate. There's really no reason not to.

If someone is asserting something wrong, it's also really easy to disprove them. If I say you have $2 in your pocket, and you say, "I don't even have a pocket," it's easy to see who has a grip on what is real. It's not a matter of opinion or belief or even principle.

---

AG
I think you like to hear yourself talk and you don't want to listen. I don't say this to be mean. I think you like the whole debate process. I don't. I will help to inform someone, as I feel I am doing a service to that person, but I don't enjoy it, just for the sake of debating.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 05, 2012 04:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:

I don't know this to be true. For the record, I don't believe in that nonsense. That's why Gitmo exists in the first place: to deny legal rights. If those detainees had been brought to Illinois as Obama had ordered they would have been entitled to more rights, which is why Conservatives blocked the move. The whole situation is a quagmire of legal vagueness that Obama hasn't figured a way out of yet. I don't get the impression that he'd like to continue the practice, though. Not from anything I've ever read on the subject.

---

posted July 05, 2012 04:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
faith, suppose you are president and the NDAA is put on your desk, passed by all but a VERY FEW votes in both houses. would you veto it? knowing that it will just go back and get the supermajority it needs to be re-passed? what does that do to your "authority" such as it is?

do you have any idea how limited the president's powers actually are in face of opposition from both houses? what he can do if they insist on passing something reprehensible?

---

posted July 05, 2012 04:34 PM            

when the president vetoes something it goes back to congress where larger majorities are needed to repass it. in this case as in many others, the original vote was so close to unanimous that bigger majority was ALREADY THERE, ie his veto would have been, as randall says, for the purpose of MAKING A STATEMENT ONLY.

i don't see obama as a romantic idealist but a pragmatist who has very little elbow room between the congress and the corporations. as i've said before, it has been a long time since ANY president has had much more. it takes a really good politician/chess player to make even a dent in what goes on, despite all the entertainment value centered in the PREZ.

posted July 05, 2012 04:37 PM            

i don't believe the president should be referred to as a tar baby. that doesn't mean i think he's dreamy. can you spot the difference?

posted July 05, 2012 04:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
exalt him? no, protesting against tarring and feathering someone is not the same as exalting them! i know it's all or nothing with you, but not for me!

i don't believe the president should be referred to as a tar baby. that doesn't mean i think he's dreamy. can you spot the difference?

---

People don't diss him from race. They diss him from character. Remember that, Kat. The race thing is not a viable issue. If it WERE true, he would not have been elected in the first place. No one is talking about his race, here. It is very rare to hear it anywhere, except when people want to try to silence actual outcry against him as a PERSON.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 05, 2012 04:51 PM            

when i mentioned tar-and-feathering, that was not about race. perhaps you don't understand the difference. plenty of all colours were tarred and feathered back in the day.

TARBABY is a racist slur, ami, in case you missed it the first few times.

however that was just one example, a very BLATANT one, and the fact that you try to turn that into me crying "racist" is telling.

and santorum is not a racist because he uses the word nig--- either.

it is not the only issue, but it is a component. and no one seems to mind being seen to diss him for his colour...though to give credit where due, santorum caught himself midword and did NOT go all the way there. that must mean he knows better - than to be seen to be racist in public, that is!

posted July 05, 2012 05:03 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 05, 2012 05:47 PM            

You didn't find out that I was wrong on GITMO North, did you?

No I don't have Sun conjunct Neptune, and if you'd like an astrological report that confirms my basic rationality I can provide one from Liz Greene. I have the same Sun and Moon placements as Stephen Hawking. Here's an excerpt:

From Liz Greene psychological profile of my chart:
Ancient Greek philosophy postulated that the human intellect was divine; and although you no doubt too rational to attribute mystical origins and powers to the mind, reason is virtually a god to you. You tend to think in clear, well-organised patterns, and possess the ability to view any situation from a detached perspective and dissect it into its component parts so that its structure and dynamics shine through. You have a way of cutting through others' mental and emotional fog to get at the truth, and thus you are often the one to whom others turn when they need clarity, objectivity and direction. You are rarely to be found in an emotional muddle yourself, for you constantly analyse your feelings and if necessary simply disconnect from them if they threaten to trouble you too much; and for you, everything in life, including your own and others' behaviour, must have a logical explanation. You are a great believer in the healing power of objective thought, and are convinced that if only human beings could be more reasonable, more in control of their chaotic emotions and more capable of a broad and impersonal viewpoint, life would be so much better, cleaner and brighter. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/207272-2.html

Further, you haven't even entertained the fact that you could possibly be wrong on this. Am I really the one in the supposed dream world?

quote:

---

But you haven't given shown that you actually have a substantial reason for disbelieving it.

---

I'm sorry if I haven't, however, I've been following Obama for awhile now. He stated his desire to close Guantanamo, and I watched how that played out. Before that I watched Bush receive all kinds of hell for his practice of rendition (another issue Obama's been on both sides of). There are complexities and nuances of the office that we're not privy to. Sure, we can pronounce broad judgment over them, but without knowing the intimate details of why these things are being kept in place, we really won't know what the motive is.

quote:

---

Do you not have Google?

---

Of course I have Google as do you. You're as welcome to use it as I am.

Ami,
I have PLENTY of history here that suggests that I do listen.

quote:

---

I will help to inform someone, as I feel I am doing a service to that person, but I don't enjoy it, just for the sake of debating.

---

That's precisely my position. However, if you can't tell me why I'm wrong, then I'm probably not wrong. I don't know how many ways I can say it, but having command of whatever the truth is will allow you to speak quickly and effectively when someone is approaching something from a misguided viewpoint. It doesn't require that you be argumentative or disrespectful. You just point out with clarity what exactly is wrong with what has been said. It's not hard to tell a person that the sky is blue, or that the Earth is round, is it? No, it's pretty easy. But if you can't or won't articulate such an easy thing, then it's difficult to conceive that you have a grasp of the concept.

posted July 05, 2012 05:58 PM            

So, I offer this deal to you

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 05, 2012 08:16 PM            

quote:

---

You didn't find out that I was wrong on GITMO North, did you?

---

My point was, the intention is to bring indefinite detention to America. Obama's action establishing the place speaks of his character whether it is open or not. And it's typical of this administration not to keep Americans current on whether the place is open or not. Your conclusion that it is NOT open still needs CURRENT verification. Otherwise you are mistaking your own deduction for fact.

Riddle me this. Where do you come up with your conclusions, in general?

quote:

---

Obama asserted at the start that the bill was basically unnecessary with regard to detention as the rules had previously been laid out in a manner sufficient to the pursuit of Administration aims.

---

Where and when? Links.

quote:

---

The crux of the issue is that you think NDAA was an Obama power grab when it wasn't. Not at day one, and not when he signed it. From the start he was opposed to language in the bill, especially where American citizens are concerned.

---

It WAS a power grab, consistent with all his other power grabs. He is a *power grabber.*

The facts are all before you and you swat them away like flies.

I asked you if you have Google because you refuse to even LEARN about Elena Kagan and preventive detention. GOOGLE it for God's sake, don't just say:

quote:

---

I don't know this to be true. For the record, I don't believe in that nonsense.

---

Sure. Just sit there ignorant. Congratulations.

Same sun as Hawking eh? January 8th people are typically a lot more incisive than this.

But that you won't quit is typical for second decan Caps.

Just so you know, I am one also.

posted July 05, 2012 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

My point was, the intention is to bring indefinite detention to America.

---

No, that was not his intention. His intention was to bring those held captive on foreign soil to American soil, because it would better ensure their access to our justice system. Bush specifically put them at Guantanamo to deny them any rights under U.S. law. For more: Guantanamo Bay: Why Obama hasn’t fulfilled his promise to close the facility. This is all stuff I've known. Obama certainly isn't interested indefinite military detention, and never has been.

quote:

---

Your conclusion that it is NOT open still needs CURRENT verification.

---

I provided as current information as I could find. If the city of Thompson doesn't know that the prison located there is in use, I'm not sure who would.

The minimum-security portion of the facility was occupied from 2006 to 2010, but the maximum-security section remained unused. The prison was declared surplus by the State of Illinois and closed on April 30, 2010.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has expressed an intention to purchase the facility; negotiations are ongoing.

Upcoming Events will be posted as they become available. Please check back. Thank you : )

Do you have something proving the prison at Thompson is in use? You haven't posted anything showing as much.

Oh, look at this, I DID find something more current on Thompson Correctional Center:
Leaders renew push to open Thomson Correctional Center

This story has been updated on May 22 to reflect the following correction: The Obama administration did provide a letter to Illinois' congressional delegation dated April 4, 2011, in which it stated in part "While we are confident the Thomson facility would be amply secure enough to house such individuals, Congress has since prohibited the use of funds to transfer such detainees to the United States. The Administration opposed that restriction. ... Nevertheless, consistent with current law, we will not transfer detainees from Guantanamo to Thomson, or otherwise house Guantanamo detainees at Thomson. The Thomson facility would only house federal inmates and would be operated solely by the Bureau of Prisons."

My instinct was and is correct.

quote:

---

Where and when? Links.

---

I already provided the link.

Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk.
November 17, 2011 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf

quote:

---

The facts are all before you and you swat them away like flies.

---

The facts are before me, and I embrace them as you should my fellow Capricorn.

quote:

---

I asked you if you have Google because you refuse to even LEARN about Elena Kagan and preventive detention. GOOGLE it for God's sake, don't just say:

---

I KNOW! What I'm saying is that you have an opportunity to present your case here, and you haven't. You've asserted something as true, but you didn't offer any proof.

Here's a confirmation exchange between Kagan and Lindsey Graham on exactly your chosen subject matter: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/4/17/10224/4253

In it, she agrees with Senator Graham that there ought to be a process for determining "enemy combatant" status that doesn't rely solely on the Executive Branch [the Administration in office]. His contention is that there ought to be a due process for determining such status, and she concurs. What that means is that she's agreed to a qualified definition of who can be detained during time of war. She does seem ok with preventive detention, but -like any liberal- would like to see such a person held legally within the boundaries of reasonable oversight.

quote:

---

Sure. Just sit there ignorant.

---

Not ignorant. No where near ignorant. My birthday is the 26th of December. My Sun is at 5 degrees, and it's in the 8th house. My Moon is in Virgo at 29 degrees. My Ascendant is Gemini. Here's how Liz Greene's Psychological profile starts for me:

The penetrating power of a clear and logical mind
* An unusual combination of conservatism and liberal thinking * Overemphasis on facts denies the nonrational * A precise and analytical mind dissects everything in sight * Conflict between the world of facts and the world of dreams * Worshipping at the altar of the god of reason

I like this, too:
Your unusual mental abilities combine with realism and a sound appreciation of facts and of the ways of the world. Your mind does not fly off into realms of abstract theory and philosophy, but remains fully grounded in reality, testing each concept against life as it is. You have well-developed organising abilities, great common sense, a careful, orderly and perhaps scientifically trained intellect, and a capacity to focus and concentrate your mental energy on obtainable goals so that you always produce results. You are a practical idealist, and therefore powerful and effective in inaugurating new methods and procedures.

posted July 05, 2012 11:55 PM            

Thanks for your time. I wrote you a long post and deleted it.

I told Ami that I believe most news outlets are just peddling propaganda. So what I do is, I consult a variety of sources to form my opinions, and look at gov documents, and read books. Third house Pluto, getting to the bottom of everything. Trine Gemini Mars and Aquarius Mercury.

I am of the belief that the neoconservatives have successfully hijacked our foreign policy. PNAC was central to the conversion of America from a relatively peaceful nation into an empire that now defines America as a battlefield. We will be seeing more of the effects of that.

PNAC members include basically the entire Bush cabinet. The phrase "American Century" has become loaded. Listen for it. Romney used the term several times in the debates.
And your own buddy...

Am I surprised to see this in 2008?
https://asianist.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/obama-declares-a-new-american-century/

And still in 2012? http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/23/president-obama-touts-new-americ an-century-air-force-grads

NO.

If you believe that O's intention has been to challenge these w*rmongers, but he's failed because Congress keeps getting the upper hand...then what you believe is, to my mind, a storyline that has been packaged and fed to O supporters, and eaten up like candy.
The fact is, he's a willing and highly effective neocon, accomplishing their agenda while pretending to fight them. Rallying support for their agenda with Democrats, so now we have left-right consensus on the necessity of endless w*r.

I don't know how far along America will get in its path toward the nightmare of t*talitarianism. We are already pretty far along. People in other countries feel our iron fist relentlessly, but the Muslims have been dehumanized, just like the Jews were. It doesn't matter how many people are dying, does it? We have to solve the terr*r problem.

Of course, it was O's one-time foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski who stated before Congress:

"The war on terr*r is a mythical historical narrative."

You're telling me O doesn't know that?

There is nothing "conspiratorial" in this. PNAC was ready to invade the Middle East before 9 11. They were merely looking for a pretext.

Once you understand that, your tolerance toward any action taken by the President in the name of "fighting terr*rism" will go down. You will see that it's a smokescreen. You will see that the enemy is not who you think and the heroes are not who you think. There is no need to override and re-write the Constitution, making special provisions for the treatment of a new class of people, the "t*rrorists." THERE IS NO SUCH THING. There are only people.

The refusal of a large part of the population to even LOOK at facts that are not consistent with their, pardon me, brainwashing is an ominous indicator that we are in for rough times ahead.

But I wish you and your lovely wife (Ha! Saw your picture!) and basically everyone peace and protection through those times.

Seeing the forest (8H Pisces moon) while you see the trees (Virgo moon) and noticing that the conversation has been worthwhile.

posted July 06, 2012 06:35 AM            

I don't understand how or why you are this way, as I don't have a part of myself that resonates with it.

posted July 06, 2012 10:36 AM            

With regard to independent thinking, I obviously engage in far more of it than you understand.

Faith, I'm surprised you've taken all I wrote last night, and thrown it out the window. I gave you the links you wanted and everything. You continue to project what you want to see of me on to me. Do you really believe that I don't read a variety of sources? Can you show /prove where my thinking is incorrect?

If Obama seems like a Neoconservative to you, it's out of necessity. Before he was ever elected people around here thought Obama would govern too far from the Left, which is a notion I pointed out was inaccurate. That was an inherently impractical viewpoint. If you get 50% of the vote in this country, you've only managed to snag about a third of those eligible to vote, which means a full two thirds of voting age adults don't endorse you. Candidates find themselves pandering to their bases for support, but once the office is achieved the candidate is forced to move to the center. It's inescapable.

posted July 06, 2012 10:43 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 06, 2012 11:11 AM            

How ironic is it for you to even attempt such an argument? You listen to random opinion (i.e. Rush Limbaugh), and insist that you "KNOW" something. That is not independent thinking. That is having someone else feed you your thinking. You are one of the MASSES that listens to Rush. We've tried to get you to diversify your sources, even though you don't engage in trying to prove your opinion or belief, and you come back to me yesterday with a six-week listen to Rush challenge? Ridiculous.