I say yesterday was the bottom. The Dow goes upwards from here.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by klott

I don't have a cause and nothing said, facts or rumors affects him in any way, I just hate what he is doing to us, and that is my way of venting my frustrations. Google his name and you will see my sources which back up my mini rants. Every time I use my mouse, it duplicates in threes, so I try to avoid cut and paste.

Stick to relevant issues is still my advice Ken Like this one.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, March 13, 2009
WWW.USDOJ.GOV

AG
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

Department of Justice Withdraws “Enemy Combatant” Definition for Guantanamo Detainees

In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant."

The Department also submitted a declaration by Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, under executive orders issued by President Obama, the government is undertaking an interagency review of detention policy for individuals captured in armed conflicts or counterterrorism operations as well as a review of the status of each detainee held at Guantanamo. The outcome of those reviews may lead to further refinements of the government’s position as it develops a comprehensive policy.

"As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," said Attorney General Holder. "The change we’ve made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger."

In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The government’s new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the president’s authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The brief was filed in habeas litigation brought by numerous detainees at Guantanamo who are challenging their detention under the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Boumediene v. Bush. A copy of the brief is attached.


I encourage all of you to read and think about the ramifications of this new policy.

[Kevin M. Leonard]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Well no wonder your happy about Obama. Adding $13 to your check is a much better deal.

And BTW, if Obama is successful in instituting cap and trade for carbon, you will be paying more for everything you buy or energy you consume.

Do you want him to fail on this idea or not?

If Obama Fails we all fail. I didn't want Bush to fail in Iraq even though I was dead set against that war from the start. I was hoping everyday that our troops would have found the WMD's to at least save face of our country.

I will take the $13.00 because I am not making over 250k a year. I don't want to see everything go up more than it already has but less than a year ago I was paying $5.00 a gallon. I am now paying $1.89 a gallon.
Today I can fly round trip to Europe for a little over $200.00. A year ago that same flight was over $1,000.00.

Whats changed?

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by kleonard

I don't want to see everything go up more than it already has but less than a year ago I was paying $5.00 a gallon. I am now paying $1.89 a gallon.
Today I can fly round trip to Europe for a little over $200.00. A year ago that same flight was over $1,000.00.

Whats changed?

The evil oil companies are hurting now that Bush is not in office.

On a serious note- It's called a recession and we are trying to fend off a depression.

It's too bad Obama and company are doing nothing useful about it.

[klott]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Stick to relevant issues is still my advice Ken Like this one.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, March 13, 2009
WWW.USDOJ.GOV

AG

(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

Department of Justice Withdraws “Enemy Combatant” Definition for Guantanamo Detainees

In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant."

The Department also submitted a declaration by Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, under executive orders issued by President Obama, the government is undertaking an interagency review of detention policy for individuals captured in armed conflicts or counterterrorism operations as well as a review of the status of each detainee held at Guantanamo. The outcome of those reviews may lead to further refinements of the government’s position as it develops a comprehensive policy.

"As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," said Attorney General Holder. "The change we’ve made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger."

In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The government’s new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the president’s authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The brief was filed in habeas litigation brought by numerous detainees at Guantanamo who are challenging their detention under the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Boumediene v. Bush. A copy of the brief is attached.


I encourage all of you to read and think about the ramifications of this new policy.

oh yeah, substantial support, might as well not capture them in the first place! I hope our troops shoot to kill from now on.

[Kevin M. Leonard]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Stick to relevant issues is still my advice Ken Like this one.



I encourage all of you to read and think about the ramifications of this new policy.

Michael,
Are you not tired of the scare tactics. This is the undoing of another wrong that the previous administation did. In short what this means is that the President will have to get approval of congress before going forward with detaining people that they may think are a threat to us. It is going back to the laws that were in place before Bush/Cheney made their own laws. Nothing more.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by kleonard

Michael,
Are you not tired of the scare tactics. This is the undoing of another wrong that the previous administation did. In short what this means is that the President will have to get approval of congress before going forward with detaining people that they may think are a threat to us. It is going back to the laws that were in place before Bush/Cheney made their own laws. Nothing more.

Ken is right. This is now a the no prisoners command to our troops. The fact that we will no longer be able to gather useful intelligence from "detainees" is as they say "too bad I guess".


For clarity's sake, what was "the wrong" that the previous administration did?

[Kevin M. Leonard]

Originally Posted by mlarson

The evil oil companies are hurting now that Bush is not in office.

On a serious note- It's called a recession and we are trying to fend off a depression.

It's too bad Obama and company are doing nothing useful about it.

So what your saying is the 3.5B your state is getting just for is nothing? Your right, it will only save or create about 70,000 jobs. I guess it's doing nothing useful unless it's your job, or maybe the streets you drive on, or mabe the houses you will inspect because more people will have money to buy them.

http://www.wrn.com/gestalt/go.cfm?ob...53A8D6FB26AE26

Drill Baby Drill, That was a brilliant tactic.

[Kevin M. Leonard]

Originally Posted by mlarson

For clarity's sake, what was "the wrong" that the previous administration did?

What??? Are you kidding???? That's a joke...Right????

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by kleonard

So what your saying is the 3.5B your state is getting just for is nothing? Your right, it will only save or create about 70,000 jobs. I guess it's doing nothing useful unless it's your job, or maybe the streets you drive on, or mabe the houses you will inspect because more people will have money to buy them.

Drill Baby Drill, That was a brilliant tactic.

If you want real growth, tax cuts are the way to go.

Have you noticed how Obama likes to refer to depression era while avoiding mentioning the Carter years of high unemployment, high interest rates and inflation?

Do you know how we got out of teh Carter years?

Government has no ability to create a job that increases productivity and that is the only real way to increase living standards.

Spending more than any other president is not the way to prosperity.

[Kevin M. Leonard]

Originally Posted by mlarson

The evil oil companies are hurting now that Bush is not in office.

No record breaking profits lately.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by kleonard

No record breaking profits lately.

Are profits bad?

[Kevin M. Leonard]

Originally Posted by mlarson

If you want real growth, tax cuts are the way to go.


Spending more than any other president is not the way to prosperity.

I do not disagree with you. I want to keep my money as much as anyone else. At the same time I would like to be able to eat & have a roof over my head. I don't know if you realize how close we really are to a complete economic meltdown. And it can & very well may still happen. I don't consider my self a nay sayer or a doomsdayer type of person. But our economic Reality is now & has been since Sept 08 on the verge of a catastophic collapse. So Like Bushes 750B bailout, Obamas 2T bailout is a nessesary evil. It may end up just proloning the inevitable, But, on the other hand it just might work. Lets hope it does.

[Kevin M. Leonard]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Are profits bad?

When it cost me $100.00 to fill my tank. WHen people can't afford to eat if the want to go to work. If it drives up the cost of EVERYTHING we purchase. When it drives the world economy to the brink. No, not at all, Lets hope they jack it back up because their record profits were a good thing.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by kleonard

When it cost me $100.00 to fill my tank. WHen people can't afford to eat if the want to go to work. If it drives up the cost of EVERYTHING we purchase. When it drives the world economy to the brink. No, not at all, Lets hope they jack it back up because their record profits were a good thing.

Then you should support drilling on our own land to increase supply and reduce prices.

It cost me $160 to fill my tank last summer.
I didn't like it either but liberals are on record for supporting high fuel prices to reduce consumption and "save the planet"

Windmills and solar cells will not cut it.

Carbon taxes only exacerbate the problem.

[Kevin M. Leonard]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Then you should support drilling on our own land to increase supply and reduce prices.

It cost me $160 to fill my tanks last summer.
I didn't like it either but liberals are on record for supporting high fuel prices to reduce consumption and "save the planet"

Windmills and solar cells will not cut it.

Carbon taxes only exacerbate the problem.

"Save The Planet" What a concept.

Do you know Google supplies many of it's employees with electric cars that are charged by solar panels when they are at work. Green is the future whether you beleive in global warming or not. It will also create many new jobs. The oil will not last forever. We have reched or are very near the peak in oil production. Google it.

And besides, If we started drilling today it would take 7 to 10 years before we saw the first drop. Drill Baby Drill is not the answer either.

I am a firm believer in All renewable energy development. I also think we need nuclear power. I am sure they can figure out a way to use the spent fuel rods rather than store them in some mountain.