ahem...samuel, you were the one who was going around talking about "c***suckingfests" - not i. you can live your life however you want, but consider that this might not be an appropriate venue for talking about your fantasies. and watch your language - this is a family website and that kind of talk is unnecessary, even in the D&D. any more vulgarities and i shall report you - this is your final warning. hmm...this is very interesting (and by interesting i mean totally hypocritical) coming from someone who constantly goes around calling people "r****ds". you have even used that hurtful term in this very thread... dont throw stones in glass houses lawboi. i find it incredibly odd (and by odd i mean not plausible) that you would only read the first sentence of my post and then stop reading. you are on record saying you have read all my other posts in this thread three times...yet you only read the first sentence of this one? i have to say samuel, im not buying it.
edit: never mind, n o point. Congratulations, joseph, you are one persistent little b-tch, ergo you win the thread by virtue of tenacity.
as usual, you are the one who started arguing w/ me samuel. i did not initiate one single post in your direction - i was simply responding to you when you quoted my posts. i dont see how that makes me a "persistent little b-itch". not responding to you would be rude. and what is with your name calling and vulgarity? you call people "r****ds" and "little b-itches" and talk about wanting to give me oral sex - you really need to control yourself. im not a whiny little baby who goes around threatening to report people like you samuel, but if i was ever going to report a post this would be it. you constantly follow me around trying to start arguments, often about things i wasnt even talking about - i always make you look like a chump, but you continually come back for more. i dont know what it is about my posts that sets you off and makes you act so irrational - all i know is that i really enjoy seeing you repeatedly make a fool out of yourself so dont get discouraged lawboi.
^I'm actually not even arguing with you on a substantive basis, here, that's the ironic part; I said, even conceding everything you say is right about the events of 2009, what should the going-forward policy be? Maybe defiance of congress should be a viable alternative here? You respond with random bits of fagbaiting, long point-by-point irrelevant polemics and other bits of insanity, repeated declarations of victory abut the level of a 6-year-old ( in other words, fellating yourself on the internet, something I know quite a bit about (which doesn't make you gay, just narcissitic, for the record)) - that's fine I don't care, I was just trying to discuss the question. That's why I concede your winning of the interwebs by virtue of persistence - I get it, man, I've been there. Let me propose an answer and get your thoughts: Why not transfer the prisoners via the defense budget? Illegal? politically unfeasible?
SamFisher you have been given a final warning -- I suggest you take advantage of your last chance here at Clutchfans.
i answered your question the first time you asked it - you even quoted and bolded parts of my answer. samuel, you were the one talking about how you wanted to give me oral sex - i didnt bring it up. as i said, this is not an appropriate venue for expressing your desires. you notice that when you initially started arguing w/ me, or "e-slapfighting" as you call it, you were crying about me blaming obama and trying to say it was all the evil republicans fault. when this pathetic argument of yours fell apart you turned to your current line of questioning on what i would like to see done now. despite the fact that you have not answered one single question i have posed to you, i was kind enough to answer your query the first time you asked it.
Let me propose an answer and get your thoughts: Why not transfer the prisoners via the defense budget? Illegal? politically unfeasible? (PS use of the word "pathetic" above gives you the MFW triple word score, throw in "moron" and you will get the quadruple.)
is obama not signing executive orders to continue indefinite detention and holding people w/out charges and upholding the military commissions act? is he not doing the exact opposite of what he said he would do when he was campaigning? in other words, its everyones fault...but obama.
I don't consider it a controversial proposition to state that when the legislative branch, of its own voilition, blocks executive branch action, the primary responsibility for that action not being accomplished with the legislative branch. Regardless, that is all stupid semantics. Who cares as a metaphysical proposition who gets what proportion of "blame"? I surely don't at this point. Let me propose an answer and get your thoughts: Why not transfer the prisoners via the defense budget? Illegal? politically unfeasible?
let me propose an answer and get your thoughts: why is obama signing executive orders to continue indefinite detention and military commissions? why is obama doing the exact opposite of what he said he would do? is it b/c he is spineless? a liar? a coward? a neocon in sheeps clothing?
Because otherwise they would go free - nobody ever promised that. Also, it should be noted that your above statement is wrong, a number of them have been sent away from Guantanmo or subjected to civilian trials. It's hard to debate you when you frame the question based on a conclusion that's divorced from the facts and reality of the situation. The reality is that the Guantanmo population hasn't been detained indefinitely since 2009, the reality is that 20-25% of it has been moved out of Guantanamo and that some prisoners have been tried in SDNY, among other places. The reality is that Obama attempted to close it and it was blocked. The way you frame it ignores this reality. Now, I answered your question, I conceded you internet supremacy, I don't care about stupid homophobia - can you answer mine? It's not a question designed to embarrass or hurt or trap you, as it requires an open ended response, it's not a cross examination question in which I know there's only one non-ridiculous answer. Let me propose an answer and get your thoughts: Why not transfer the prisoners via the defense budget? Illegal? politically unfeasible?
the legislative branch forced obama to sign executive orders to continue indefinite detention and military commissions? remember samuel, that he took those actions before congress did anything relating to gitmo. it seems to me like you want to "blame" everyone but your precious obama. samuel, i have posed several questions in this thread and you have not answered a single one. it is quite snobby, yet typical of you to go around demanding others answer all your queries, yet you ignore all of theirs. so you are saying that obama signed executive orders to continue bush policies b/c otherwise the detainees would go free? that is a pretty weak excuse, even by your standards. and a number of them are being held indefinitely and w/out charges - actions fully supported and endorsed by your precious obama. and how exactly does this make my statement that is "obama signing executive orders to continue indefinite detention and military commissions" wrong? are you trying to claim that he did not take such actions? you are delusional - a number of detainees at gitmo are indeed being held indefinitely and w/out charges post-2009. the reality is that obama signed executive orders to continue bush-era detention polices - the exact opposite of what he promised to do when he was campaigning.
some of your criticisms of obama are ridiculous, like sam says, do you want him to do things outside of the law. you're a libertarian right?
yes, it is ridiculous of me to expect obama to do what he said he was going to do. most of my criticisms of obama were things i also criticized bush for. many democrats did as well...till a democrat started doing them. and no, i do not want obama to do things outside the law - i want him to follow the law - that is why i am against his policy of indefinite detention and military commissions.
Another incredibly lame gay joke. Honestly, do you realize how stupid this makes you look? I'm not saying this because I think your lame gay putdowns are offensive, trust me, they're not even remotely, they don't offend me in the slightest. It's like if I was wearing a blue jacket, and you tried to insult me by saying "you wear a blue jacket, you bluie!" - like what? The problem is, rather than making you look simply insensitive or mean-spirited, they just make you look an uneducated dumbass high school junior from Splendora, TX. Newsflash: Out here in the real world - gay is in....and not in a closet way. I walk down Christopher Street past Stonewall usually every day as part of my commute for the last few months - hell I'm about to step out for lunch there now, I'm not going to recoil in horror when seeing a rainbow flag because some anonymous goofball on the internet intimated that I was a queer. Here is a hint: If you truly want to be an elite BBS D&D champion, act the part, joseph. Act like you've been there before, leave the 6th grade flamer-flaming at home. If I have time to read your really annoying-at first glance-looking point-by-point above, I will later, but I'm not optimistic about it given your past contributions to this thread.
OK, here goes, as promised, just the highlights rather than a point by point exhaustathon, I don't even understand many of your other arguments so I'm not really going to address them. That's not accurate, I wasn't interested in arguing the point and basically conceded you were right, for the sake of argument, multiple times. If you're asking me whether Obama promised to try to close Guantanamo (he did), and whether or not it has been closed yet (it has not) - you're undoubtedly correct in that he has failed to accomplish this goal. I'm not ignoring that portion of your query, I'm just deeming it uninteresting, because it's not really arguable (that the camp is not yet closed). There are obviously intervening factors involved when it comes to the reality of the situation (e.g., there are more variables in this equation than simply unilateral action), which you don't want to discuss and refused to acknowledge, so be it - that's fine, I don't care, i was asking a separate question about what to do now. If you don't want to answer it, which you apparently don't, that's fine. As for your second point, you posed the question as to why he recently has continued indefinite detention - the answer is inextricably linked to the realities that you refuse to acknowledge above - the reason why he recently signed those orders is because congress has blocked the alternatives.
there was no gay innuendo in that post - methinks the lady doth protest too much! im actually from humble - close though! you sure have thin skin for someone who constantly goes around calling other posters "r****ds". use of that word just makes you look like an uneducated dumbass highschool junior from cut n' shoot, tx.
i dont buy the excuse that those meanies in congress forced obama to sign executive orders to continue indefinite detention. he did not have to codify what they did, but he chose to. if obama is so weak that congress can bully him into signing executive orders that he does not like perhaps he does not deserve a 2nd term. i like what the aclu had to say on the matter... http://www.aclu.org/national-securi...order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detention
