Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

congress made a law w/o the President signing it? over ride?

The certification requirements that Congress has imposed -- like the other provisions that have prevented closure of Gitmo -- have been part of the defense authorization bills.

So, yes, Obama could have vetoed the bill, and threatened to leave the US unable to pay for the military, unless Congress struck these provisions. But he has never been willing to play chicken with national security (or default, or other things that the Rs have been willing to risk).

You say you voted for him in part because he said he would close Gitmo. If instead he had said "I will close Gitmo even if it means vetoing every national defense bill passed by Congress," would you have felt different?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

The certification requirements that Congress has imposed -- like the other provisions that have prevented closure of Gitmo -- have been part of the defense authorization bills.

So, yes, Obama could have vetoed the bill, and threatened to leave the US unable to pay for the military, unless Congress struck these provisions. But he has never been willing to play chicken with national security (or default, or other things that the Rs have been willing to risk).

You say you voted for him in part because he said he would close Gitmo. If instead he had said "I will close Gitmo even if it means vetoing every national defense bill passed by Congress," would you have felt different?

I voted for him for reasons other than Gitmo, and to be clear, I'm glad he hasn't closed it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm glad he hasn't closed it.

Why?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why?

why not?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

why not?

For a very brief moment there you were offering an actual, honest opinion, instead of concern trolling.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

For a very brief moment there you were offering an actual, honest opinion, instead of concern trolling.

I don't get you. Why do you get to define what is a fair question. I simply asked you the exact thing you asked me.

I have said a dozen times "why" I don't think we can close Gitmo. If you can't remember those times, "why" tell you a 13th time?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I don't get you. Why do you get to define what is a fair question. I simply asked you the exact thing you asked me.

I have said a dozen times "why" I don't think we can close Gitmo. If you can't remember those times, "why" tell you a 13th time?

You have said so much about Gitmo that I honestly cannot remember what you might actually think and what you might just have said to be provocative. Like Sidd, I had an impression that you wanted it closed, evidently because you've criticized Obama from that direction so often.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You have said so much about Gitmo that I honestly cannot remember what you might actually think and what you might just have said to be provocative. Like Sidd, I had an impression that you wanted it closed, evidently because you've criticized Obama from that direction so often.

He thinks they are all very bad, and that Obama must have learned as much from Bush's secret files as he hasn't closed Gitmo.

On these issues he's Atticus-light. He'll never question authority unless he sees a political angle in it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You have said so much about Gitmo that I honestly cannot remember what you might actually think and what you might just have said to be provocative. Like Sidd, I had an impression that you wanted it closed, evidently because you've criticized Obama from that direction so often.

never criticized obama for not closing: made the point that his not closing shows how naive your criticism of W was.

never criticized Obama for drone killings: made the point that it shows how naive your complaints re. W supposedly throwing out the concept of "rights" was.

ETC.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

I just want to remind everyone, this is where Hank and Club get their news: Fox Poll Adds up to 110%

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

never criticized obama for not closing: made the point that his not closing shows how naive your criticism of W was.

I think he criticized W for opening Gitmo, more than for not closing it. Gitmo is an intractable problem -- the guys who really were dangerous and criminal can't be tried, the guys who weren't now are because of how they've been treated.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I cannot believe that the public editor of the New York Times would ask whether it makes sense for reporters to point out when politicians are lying. WTF?

I think it depends on the depth of the piece. If I'm a reading 100 word tabloid bit on what Romney said, telling me what he said is alone adequate. If it's 300 words or more, I'd say the reporter has an obligation to note the lie.

This is kind of a dumb subject for the Times to be considering, in that it's so easily solved. All a reporter has to do is employ the use of a verb noting the statement is allegation and not much else. "As he has been for several months, Romney generally and without reference to any specific incident, accused Obama of apologizing for America" suffices.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

never criticized obama for not closing: made the point that his not closing shows how naive your criticism of W was.

never criticized Obama for drone killings: made the point that it shows how naive your complaints re. W supposedly throwing out the concept of "rights" was.

ETC.

The fact that Obama has not fixed problems Bush created and in some ways has made them worse doesn't show that criticism of Bush was naive. It just shows that neither party has a monopoly on poor judgment.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The fact that Obama has not fixed problems Bush created and in some ways has made them worse doesn't show that criticism of Bush was naive. It just shows that neither party has a monopoly on poor judgment.

or maybe you don't recognize good judgement? think. about. it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

In Europe, the unstoppable force of austerity is colliding with the immovable object that is reality. Expect fireworks.

Will Europe unravel in time to make a summer vacation much cheaper?

eta: BREAKING ... The European economy is taking on water and not moving forward ...