The Back Alley Archives

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:09 pm**

BHO voters, how does this one make y'all feel? Because if you have any sense at all you will feel at least a twinge in the pit of your stomach. I expect y'all will either marginalize the importance of this policy or come up with some roundabout way to support your boy.

President Obama's Justice Department signaled in a San Francisco courtroom Monday that the change in administrations has not changed the government's position on secrecy and the rights of foreign prisoners - and that lawsuits by alleged victims of CIA kidnappings and torture must be dismissed on national security grounds.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/09/MNGS15QB5B.DTL

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/10/unexpected-headline-obama-backs-bush-on-rendition-secrecy/

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:19 pm**

pfft...

yet they want to free the gitmo monsters, who, IMO, are worthy of nothing more than a bullet to the back of the head.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:20 pm**

I take that back. They don't deserve to be shot. Military enemies get shot. Criminals get hung. They should all be unceremoniously hung.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:34 pm**

Wow, the libbies are going to have to massage this data to avoid looking like idiots. Looks like Dear Leader is capable of lying to both parties to get elected.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:41 pm**

I'm curious as to slider's thoughts on this. I imagine he's gotta be disappointed.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:16 pm**

nationalism at it's best!!! love it.

guessing slider will not be pleased to hear that BHO agrees with Bush in this regard....i'll have to search for that heated discussion we both had re:bush's decisions on these matters....if i recall - slider was dead set against the lengths by which the bush administration was getting their intelligence...i said something about a war on terror and how there are so many things that have been thwarted that we'll never know about...slider than jumped out of his skin at me saying how much he DID know.

i'll have to see if i can find it.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:53 pm**

no one likes stirring that pot more than rad!

Uh, Doc where's the popcorn eating emoticon?

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:20 pm**

lmao....slider - not singling you out because i actually like you despite our differences...just singling you out because you like to be the spokesman for BHO so i'll throw this on your plate to eat...again.

http://www.the-back-alley.com/index.php?topic=5210.0

in case you're not interested in your serving, i'll give you the readers digest version...AA posted about how the neolibs and neocons are both guilty of not being able to come through with anything they ever try to promise...his post quoted a guy saying something about "drumming up fear of terrorists, but actually making America less secure, and stomping on our liberties in the process." i responded to that small portion of it and you came out with a

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin

lol brother...it's comical. check out the link dude.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:22 pm**

O0

austin aint the hotbed of terrorism...i'm not surprised.
Point being is that I am not some rube spouting bullshit. I know a little more about this than the average person.

And given all that I know, I will never support bullshit things like warrantless wiretapping of US citizens. One of the things bin Laden was hoping for was that we would react in fear and change our society. I will not live in fear, nor will I compromise my beliefs in what this country stands for.

Rant over.

just havin fun at ya brother.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:26 pm**

What I am NOT for is turning the US into a police state in the name of security.

The bottom line is this - it is impossible to defend us against all terrorism. Even the experts agree on that. However, it is possible for us to do so that is within the extent of the law and that will not violate the basic premises of our country. Such is the case for an open society.

gotcha!

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:29 pm**

Well then we need to respectfully agree to disagree then. Obama will be tough on terrorism, trust me.

:cough: closing gitmo and dismissing charges on suspected terrorist plotters :cough:

again - just having some fun at ya.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:34 pm**

No problem. I just don't want to have to defend everything. I don't have time for that. Its all good man.

I will need to do some more homework on this. However, this appears to be in opposition to what he campaigned on. Like I said, I will need to do some more homework.

I stand by all my statements above. And I do support closing Gitmo. As it has been stated, it in not like they are going to be set free, just moved to other prisons.

The thing that surprises me though is that it appears that some of you are OK with sacrificing our individual liberties in the name of freedom, as Ben Franklin put it so well. If we become a police state, then the terrorists truly win. That was the goal of bin Laden from the beginning.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:50 pm**

For the record: I have never nor will ever support the 'temporary' sacrifice of personal freedom in an effort to secure our freedom. The irony of it hits me like a brick--just like the bailouts...we solve most problems by PERPETUATING the problem, in fact, often expanding it and increasing the destructive force it has.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:53 pm**

No problem. I just don't want to have to defend everything. I don't have time for that. Its all good man.

I will need to do some more homework on this. However, this appears to be in opposition to what he campaigned on. Like I said, I will need to do some more homework.

I stand by all my statements above. And I do support closing Gitmo. As it has been stated, it in not like they are going to be set free, just moved to other prisons.

The thing that surprises me though is that it appears that some of you are OK with sacrificing our individual liberties in the name of freedom, as Ben Franklin put it so well. If we become a police state, then the terrorists truly win. That was the goal of bin Laden from the beginning.

If you're talking about Gitmo with that last part, then you are wrong from my point of view. We're not suspending our liberties. I just don't feel we should be EXTENDING any to criminalistic terrorists.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:29 pm**

lol

nevermind...let's just move on...nothing to see here i guess.

guy opposes stuff just because a guy with an "R" behind his name enacted it and now he's all for it now that BHO says it should stay....comical....but sad too.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:37 pm**

We are doomed if most of the current "majority" thinks that way. Of course, what we've forgotten is that this country isn't about a majority and minority--it's about right and wrong.

Posted: **Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:52 pm**

Wow, what a turnaround. There's that moral relativism at work. >

The Back Alley Archives

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy

Unexpected headline? Obama backs Bush on rendition, secrecy