The Goat Pen

There will always be enough people in the room who've been there (i.e. working in previous Executive Office administrations) that will tell you why it's not a wise move to be so "transparent" and will always "run the tape forward" showing you the downstream impacts of information unchecked.

I did not think Obama would blink as fast as he did on that promise, though.

I would say I'm far from the zealot Obama basher, but let's be honest, he's blinked alot

the patriot act, Guantanamo, transparency, due process for terrorists - and that's what I can think of without putting much effort into it.

Oh no, I agree. I00%. I could easily add onto your list in my sleep.

I'm just saying that I know why he has, most times. He got a sharp awakening when he get in the room with everyone. Idealists have an easy time sleeping. Presidents go from youthful to ashen and gray within 6 years.

(Guantanamo was just naivete on his part. He could never fully close it down...although the number of detainees has dropped significantly...because no one on US soil would take the criminals. If the Roberts or Brownbacks of the state would have allowed it, Guantanamo would have been done by 2010 and everyone would have been in Leavenworth)

Bklyn wrote:Oh no, I agree. I00%. I could easily add onto your list in my sleep.

I'm just saying that I know why he has, most times. He got a sharp awakening when he get in the room with everyone. Idealists have an easy time sleeping. Presidents go from youthful to ashen and gray within 6 years.

(Guantanamo was just naivete on his part. He could never fully close it down...although the number of detainees has dropped significantly...because no one on US soil would take the criminals. If the Roberts or Brownbacks of the state would have allowed it, Guantanamo would have been done by 2010 and everyone would have been in Leavenworth)

naivete on his part perhaps by being inexperienced dealing with the layers of politics in Washington, but he was right in his ideaology

I think it would be good for them if we put the Guantanamo detainees in our prison system.

I'm not sure that giving them a pulpit in the most fertile criminal recruiting ground we have is a great idea.

Damn, I hadn't even thought of that...

Heh, you have it backwards (if you have any legitimate point, at all). Having these jihadis minimally (because you best believe they would not be in Gen Pop playing basketball or lifting weight in the yard with the Aryans, Latin Kings or Bloods) around inmates would most likely teach the jihadis more than they would teach inmates.

I guess I see why it was blocked, though. The fear is real, even if not logical.

I was playing this wrong. I had Greece holding the Eurozone hostage because you can't just let the Drachma spin out without trying to detangle a bunch of debt attribution and deal with the CDS issues. This dude is like, nah, the whole EUR is about to take a knee...

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3527981.htm

and I think I'm beginning to believe him.

My work easing up the last month has made me able to read a lot more...

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ts/384980/

Kill them all. Then shut it down. Sick of the PC crowd

Well, you didn't finish the article, obviously. That's the opposite of what we should do. It is a popular school of thought, though.

I never read the articles

"I guess I see why it was blocked, though. The fear is real, even if not logical."

I think it's plenty logical, even if it might not happen in reality. There are lots of pissed off people in prison, guys who hate the government. Further, there are plenty of guys who get jailhouse religion, with a good portion of them choosing islam. Put those two elements together with some jihadist whispering sweet nothings to these newly minted malcontents, and I can easily see bad things happening...

How? The amount of sweet nothings that have been whispered in these inmates in jail for drug dealing, possession, assault, weapons charges, etc. ears for decades have been just as horrible and anarchic. Death to the white devils, fuck the police, white pride, capitalism is evil rhetoric has been around longer than Khalid Sheik Mohammed. The jihadi YouTube videos are more dangerous than these Yemenis who've been out of circulation for over a decade and don't know the first of how to set up the Brodys from Homeland with the resources or connections to terrorize.

There is nothing that I've seen as a precedent that makes your supposition realistic.

Well, I admit to being (for the sake of my post, anyway) alarmist about the level of organization and resourcefulness of these yahoos. However, I have said many times that the 9/11 attacks weren't anything all that special in terms of planning and execution, certainly not to the level of criminal mastermindery that the media made it out to be, so I am far from being someone who thinks these clowns are geniuses of mayhem. Yeah, it was more than a few guys meeting over beers one afternoon and laying out the plan, but it damn sure wasn't anything on the level of (as you made reference to) setting up a Brody and then getting half the government in an enclosed room with the Brody in their midst with a bomb vest on. And you're probably correct that any sort of jihadist rumblings by middle eastern dudes sent to Leavenworth wouldn't have any appreciable results in the real world. I'm just saying that prisons are fertile ground for both anti-government sentiments and willingness to latch onto whatever brand of cockamammie religion is being spouted at the time. It just doesn't seem like a good combination...

I assume the goal has always been to have another religious war with the West united against Islam.

This is a weird issue. Not sure what nefarious undercurrent is pushing net neutrality and moving the internet into Title II category, but it seems to me that the constituents of both parties are against this, but the establishment is moving forward anyway. I am not usually a conspiracy guy, but there is no rationale for this unless you just want to control people's lives. Or Netflix is a big donor of yours.

http://www.cnet.com/news/net-fix-8-burn ... eutrality/

sardis wrote:This is a weird issue. Not sure what nefarious undercurrent is pushing net neutrality and moving the internet into Title II category, but it seems to me that the constituents of both parties are against this, but the establishment is moving forward anyway. I am not usually a conspiracy guy, but there is no rationale for this unless you just want to control people's lives. Or Netflix is a big donor of yours.

http://www.cnet.com/news/net-fix-8-burn ... eutrality/

initially I was for it and had been for several year but the extent of control the government wants now is alarming to me - although it shouldn't be.

What should have been a simple matter - regulation to prevent a handful of companies to control the internet has turned into this federal massive takeover

Can't the antitrust laws be enough to control that? That's why there has to be some ulterior motive going on here.