"Now let's pick some judges who aren't white males for the lower courts too." Ciara Torres-Spelliscy

Because after all, we ALL know that white male judges couldn't POSSIBLY be fair and open minded in court. Nope...gotta have African-American, Latino, Oriental, etc. CAN'T have a WASP...we KNOW they don't give a rip about us and would just as soon put us UNDER the jail as in it.

/sarcasm off now

"The difference between "socialism" and "fascism" is who the government works for."

True

"Do you believe the US government is working to help the average American? If you don't, then it's not socialism."

Well, maybe more along the lines of communism actually.

"Now let's see--people are losing jobs, homes, and retirement wealth. And...our government is delivering boatloads of *our* cash to the wealthy owners of our corporations."

But it's NOT going to wealthy owners. The government is bailing out corporations with the intent of telling them how to run their operations. So how is that putting money into the wealthy owners of the corporations? They lose their business to the government...hence some of them are trying to give back the money.

But I guess you could say it was closer to communism than socialism.

So everyone here thinks this is all our fault for being there. Ok...then let's leave Afghanistan and see what happens.

Maybe if we leave, they will let the schoolgirls go back to school and we can all sing Kumbayah and all will be right with the world. And if they kill the schoolgirls, why then it wouldn't be our fault, would it? After all, we wouldn't be there to force them to do it, would we.

Now that I'm done being sarcastic, let's look at realism. We went there looking for Osama. We didn't find them but we did make their country better. I know we did because I've BEEN there and have talked to the people there. Now, if we leave, do you REALLY think the Taliban will just stop terrorizing the populace...or do you think they will increase their efforts (since there would be no one there to stop them) until they ran the country the way they see fit...to include killing anyone, including little girls, who disagreed with them?

Everyone voted for Obama because he said he would close Gitmo.

Would have been NICE if he had had a plan on WHERE he was going to move the detainees FIRST. No one wants them in their backyard.

This would be sad if it weren't so pathetic.

"Obama can truthfully say, "Hey, I tried. Congress blocked me, and legally, I can't do anything about it. Because, despite what the former administration might have had you believe, we don't live in a monarchy.""

How convenient! Obama can say he tried, but failed because Congress tied his hands...and he doesn't have to do what he promised to do during the campaign.

Gee, wonder if this is going to CONTINUE to happen during his term in office - "Hey, I TRIED to do what I promised I would, but Congress wouldn't LET me."

Cop out!

anyone here think we will have a choice of buying GM cars or not?

Think about it. The government OWNS GM. The government ALSO controls regulations the automotive industry has to follow.

SO...why couldn't the government simply refine things to the point where the only vehicles you CAN buy are GM?

Seems to me this is a form of monopoly that the government is SUPPOSED to PROTECT the consumer from!

""I'm sure if he just went ahead and closed it, despite his lack of legal authority to do so without Congressional approval, you'd be the first to be calling him a dictator and whining that your precious Gitmo was closed."

Indeed...and yet I didn't even hear him TRY to push for it. Hypocrite indeed...I just don't believe in defending the indefensable apparently unlike you eric.

No, not EVERYONE voted for Obama just because he PROMISED to close Gitmo.

BUT he also promised other things as well. If he's willing to break ONE promise, why would you doubt he'd be willing to break another?

Seems to me the "big middle finger to the Republicans" has turned around to point at the liberals.

"But the fact of the matter is, the Congress not only blocked the funds for closing the place, but also included a provision precluding the administration from redirecting funds from elsewhere to close it."

Um, didn't they include the option for him to be able to close it IF he gave them a plan where he planned to transfer the terrorism suspects who are detained there? Seems to me all he has to do is tell them where he plans to send the to, and Congress can finance the move, yes?

"It's what went on there. Renaming it "Bagram" does no one any good but the criminals responsible for Gitmo's reputation.Nor does turning American supermaxes into little Gitmos."

I guess it all depends on your point of view. If we moved them to Bagram and let the Afghans deal with them, we could claim no knowledge and be free of blame...except that we would be justifying whatever went on in there.

I would be politically expedient...but not moral.

Since I am neither one because I've become disillusioned with both, I really could care less about who gets the middle finger.

As for the issue at hand, while this is in fact supposed to be a representative government, we have to deal with the reality at hand...i.e. those who are in power have an election coming up and want to be reelected. The reality is, they want to stay in power and will do what the majority wants so they can get reelected.

It's a sad statement...but an accurate one.