Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Varchild2008 (84.02)

Senator Barack Obama Supporting H.R. 666 (Khaleid's Freedom)



November 15, 2009 – Comments (7)

Ok.. Not quite 666.... but it is H.R. 6166.... Come on?  3 6s... and a 1... The ONE supporting an H.R. 666..

The very bill appearing after Democrats took over Congress in 2006 that would eventually lead up to today... in which President Barack Obama would call for a CIVILIAN SHOW TRIAL in New York City instead of what Senator Barack Obama said would happen which is a Military Tribunal.

Us Conservatives want a Military Tribunal.....  Barack knows that....  This is the same Clintonesque B.S. we get from Liberal Lefties all the time.... They love TALKING like a Conservative to get "votes" and then govern as a "lefty" when they get political power.

So..  Khaleid, 911 Mastermind, gets his Show Trial in New York City... Ground Zero?  how nice... (rolls eyes)...

What next for President Obama?  Let's hold hands and sing songs of love and happiness with Supreme Commander of Iran?

7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 15, 2009 at 1:50 PM, RainierMan (64.07) wrote:

It's tough living in a democracy isn't it? I mean for you conservatives. Where you can't just sentence people to death at the whim of a Supreme Cheney-esque leader.

On the one hand, conservatives believe the government could not find it's way out of a wet paper bag, but yet they believe the government would never screw up the process of deciding who is a terrorist, and who should be put to death.

How you do guys rationalize that contradiction? The government is totally incompetent, but yet they are capable of deciding who does and does not deserve justice? See any problem with that?

How do you rationalize your "conservatives are the only true Americans" view of the world with the fact that doling out justice from the Dick Cheney and George Bush perspective of "we know best" is totally contradictory to things like habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights (oh, yeah that thing), and the fact that the Supreme Court has a very major problem with what Bush was trying to do with the military tribunals at Guantanamo.

Totalitarism would probably be neater and cleaner, and definitely make "conservatives" happier when run by your hand chosen version of "real conservatives" that pass the Rush Limbaugh litmus test, but fortunately (for the majority of the country, not you guys) we aren't at that point.

And quite frankly, if some terrorist has some sort of soap box via a trial, well I think the country has bigger issues to worry about. By comparison, that issue is trivial. I would hope that Americans are resilient enough to weather such and event, distasteful as it may be.  


Report this comment
#2) On November 15, 2009 at 2:23 PM, AvianFlu (< 20) wrote:

Will you please stop calling Bush a conservative? His actions in office were very similar to most democrat presidents throughout least until democrats began emulating the communist party. Sorry to say, there do not appear to be any conservatives in the public service. But as soon as some district elects a conservative then feel free to criticize them all you want. That's America! (while it lasts)

Question: Why is it so difficult to kill a convicted mass murderer, but so easy to kill babies?

Report this comment
#3) On November 15, 2009 at 3:29 PM, RainierMan (64.07) wrote:

Oh, well, if you want to use argument-by-definition, then I would say Obama isn't a true liberal. A true liberal would never bail out capitalist America for their lousy business decisions. A true liberal would never align with big business to save their butts, like Bush at the end of his term. And since I mostly see a lot of Democrats taking care of Wall Street and and big business, I have to conclude that they are in corporate America's back pocket. Acting like a bunch of Republicans, as far as I'm concerned. Totally aligned with corporate America.

It's almost like our government, overall, is run by a bunch of raging moderates or something. As if most of America is moderate. Go figure. 

Report this comment
#4) On November 15, 2009 at 4:09 PM, ReadEmAnWeep (85.68) wrote:

Well, I agree that Bush was definitely no conservative. His admin. took the national debt to insane levels.

Report this comment
#5) On November 15, 2009 at 4:10 PM, ReadEmAnWeep (85.68) wrote:

I think michael has views mixed up

Report this comment
#6) On November 15, 2009 at 4:55 PM, rightwingnutter (79.79) wrote:

Exactly, my friend Varchild.  That evil, nasty Obamaniac is ordering the civilian trial to anger Us Conservatives who want a Military Tribunal that would execute Khalid Sheik Mohammed, preferably in the town square on live television.  If Us Conservatives wanted KSM to have a fair trial and be senteced to life in a supermax prison following the inevitable conviction, Obamaniac would go with the tribunal just to make us mad!!  He is our to get Us.  Who cares that KSM wants to be martyred?  Who cares that the one action that could best deflate terrorists would be to have a fair trial followed by locking the guy up like a piece of vermin in a cage?  Give us the blood we want! 

Report this comment
#7) On November 16, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Varchild2008 (84.02) wrote:

Uhm everyone misses the point of this?

This about Senator Obama versus President Obama .... period...

No one cares to take a gander what went on in the mind of Barack Obama as Senator supporting a Bill while promising Khaleid would get a Military Tribunal INSPITE OF the bad bill he supported?  Then once President he reverses himself completely and throws Khaleid into a Civilian Court?

How do you go from "NO WAY will Khaleid be in a Civilian Court" as Senator in 2006 to "Definitely going to put him in a Civilian Court" in 2009 as President?


Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners