Closing Gitmo doesn't make us safer, nor does it make us less secure.
I think it makes us less secure because to me, closing Gitmo sends the message that we will treat terrorists as citizens instead of the evil doers they are. Yes it is true that the same person may be viewed as both a terrorist and a freedom fighter, but killing 3,000 in one whack to make a political statement doesn't sound like freedom fighting to me. To me, it reeks of power-lust, dictatorship and religious zealotry which is not to be tolerated. Without falling prey to Godwin's Law
, I will say that those who do not study history and learn from it are doomed to repeat it.I cannot say that McCain being elected would have had the same ameliorating affect.
We can thread this train of thought off if you like, but simply put, McCain was a poor choice to nominate for President. I think that what happened was someone behind closed doors thought that because of the media's lovefest for McCain (as exemplified during the '00 primaries and again when Daschle was courting McCain, convincing him to vote Democrat on a number of issues) he would get a pass in the media and would be liberal enough to counter what some saw as Bush being too Conservative, (a paradox in itself) while still appealing to the Republican Base. The real news from the last election cycle is that somehow Obama was able to eclipse Hillary. I think that the best candidate for the job was Ron Paul.
To directly answer your assertion, I agree that McCain would not have been the change that most people wanted to see in America around the globe, nor do I believe that he would have done what is necessary to win the War on Terror.Crediting that to Obama is not factual.
I did not mean to imply that Obama was at fault for the bailout, despite his YEA vote
. I was criticizing his party's mentality that makes people victims and government a knight in shining armor. Obama has, however, made many promises of delivering welfare to special interest groups, ethnics, minorities etc. It was my intention to incorporate the spirit of motivation behind the bailout (a government handout) rather than trying to pin the bailout solely on the President.
[Again, we can thread that thought out. I know that some thought that it was best to prop up the banks, lest bank failure result in widespread business failure across the country.]For me, the financial crunch isn't a presidential problem, it's a problem for people who signed up to pay for something they could not actually pay.AMEN!
And that's coming from a guy who dropped out of college twice, owes on student loans, has a car payment and has let credit cards become his master though I was, until October, on track to get out of debt. I am still moving forward, but not at the speed I projected when I made my plans last summer.The kids are allowed to have their own opinion, just as you and I are allowed to have ours.
Certainly! I'm not saying they shouldn't.Equating the kids being excited over a new president to the problems caused by previous administrations is neither fair to the kids, the previous administration, the current administration, or anyone you are trying to help see your point of view.
No, it's not. This post was a knee-jerk reaction to what I read and felt I needed to vent. Yes, I was harsh and over the top, but my point was that if you want to praise the kids for being so smart (when in reality they are just repeating what they have heard over and over again), we should be able to measure that aptitude by how well they understand to, respond and can relate to scenarios that are the ramifications of the decisions of both the past and current administrations as well as the current administration's campaign promises.
Thank you for adding your insight to this forum.