| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
|
|
Yesterday it was a camp outside Baghdad. Can't these people get the story right? |
Yesterday it was a camp outside Baghdad. Can't these people get the story right? |
HORSE SHIT Why so ready to jump ship over one or two bs articles? Just because its from a source outside the US does not automatically make it the gospel. |
It does make a lot of sense though. After all, what are we going to do with all these terrorists after we catch them? And where are we going to keep them? Even if this isn't in the works now, it's a logical conclusion. |
|
One story repeated by many sources. They all start with "THE US has floated plans to turn Guantanamo Bay into a death camp" Yes, I would say Horse Shit on this one |
the government and the media in this country generally keep really bad bad bad bad press under wraps, even more so these days. |
|
|
I respect anyone with command of google |
its remarkable what networks will wilfully ignore, no matter how obviously newsworthy it is. Like that Waco footage that proved the fire was caused by the Janet Reno Experience. It was always there, right there on local cable, for the entire world to see, but we were told for years the fire was started from within, which was complete horseshit. |
thats a fuckin riot! oh shit some germans gay pornographers are here to see me.... |
COMIC GOLD |
|
You, sorabji posters, know you are going to have a short fall on your budget. You can either: a. steal more money to cover the projected shortfall (raise taxes) b. reduce your outlaying costs to cover the projected shortfall. c. continue as is, and hope for the best. A budget is not something written in stone. It MUST be flexible. Cut the pork out of the budget. For those of you who think the world is rosey, I must remind you that decreases in the security and defense may not be in your best interest. I am sure the economists during the previous administration did not account for the cost of 9/11 and the impact to the much celebrated surplus (that started to disipate in 1999 when fuel prices went through the roof and companies saw their operating costs sky rocket as well). |
BEGIN EXCERPT U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN: .....making sure that surplus is there. U.S. SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS (D-SC): Yeah, making sure that surplus is there. I'm telling you, Dr. Greenspan, that's music to my ears. GREENSPAN: Well, I remember you taking this song a long way over recent years, and I must say, Senator, a number of us were skeptical that was even discussable, figuring we would never get to unified surplus that we said which you were preaching was very interesting, scientifically sound, but unrealistic. I apologize. HOLLINGS: Well that's all right, because your Greenspan Commission report in section 21 says just exactly what you're saying here. That was in 1983; here now, in 1999, on page two, "simply put, enough resources must be set aside over a lifetime of work to fund retirement consumption." Now that section 21 said set it aside. President Bush, in section 13 3 01 on November the 5th, 1990 signed that into law. And we making headway. Let's understand, though, that we're still running deficits. 'Cause I'm not going along with this monkeyshine about unified. 'Cause unified is not net, the debt still goes up, is that correct? GREENSPAN: If you're...it depends on whether or not you wish to create the savings... HOLLINGS: I'm not asking what you're trying to create. The simple fact is the debt has been going up at least $100 billion for the last several years. GREENSPAN: Outside, on budget, that is correct. HOLLINGS: That's right, on budget, you're spending a hundred billion more than you're taking in. GREENSPAN: Correct. HOLLINGS: And this president's budget spends another hundred billion more than we take in. GREENSPAN: I haven't seen it yet. HOLLINGS: You haven't seen it? You're testifying about it now. GREENSPAN: I haven't seen the budget. You haven't seen it either. HOLLINGS: Well, you know his plan. Look you think he's going to spend less than a hundred billion more? GREENSPAN: I will wait to see what the numbers look like. HOLLINGS: Well, the truth is...ah, shoot, well, we all know there's Washington's math problem. Alan Sloan in this past week's Newsweek says he spends 150%. What we've been doing, Mr. Chairman, in all reality, is taken a hundred billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, transferring it over to the spending column, and spending it. Our friends to the left here are getting their tax cuts, we getting our spending increases, and hollering surplus, surplus, and balanced budget, and balanced budget plans when we continue to spend a hundred billion more than we take in. That's the reality, and I think that you and I, working the same side of the street now, can have a little bit of success by bringing to everybody's attention this is all intended surplus. In other words, when we passed the Greenspan Commission Report, the Greenspan Commission Report only had Social Security in 1983 a two hundred million surplus. It's projected to have this year a 117 million surplus. I've got the schedule, I'll ask to put in the record the CBO report: 117, 126, 130, 100, going right through to 2008 over the ten year period of 186 billion surplus. That was intended; this is dramatic about all these retirees, the baby boomers. But we forsaw that baby boomer problem, we planned against that baby boomer problem. Our problem is we've been spending that particular reserve, that set-aside that you testify to that is so necessary. That's what I'm trying to get this government back to reality, if we can do that. We owe Social Security 736 billion right this minute. If we saved 117 billion, we could pay that debt down, and have the wonderful effect on the capital markets and savings rate. Isn't that correct? Thank you very much, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. |
Um, did you *look* at the results? They're from major, respected newspapers, like the Washington Post, which says, **************** "Under the rules outlined by Bush and the military, defendants would have fewer protections in military tribunals than in federal criminal courts. For example, tribunal prosecutors are allowed much more leeway in introducing evidence; they probably will not need to show that a court authorized the seizure of a document obtained in Afghanistan. ... "Convictions would be appealed not through civil courts but through the defense secretary and ultimately the president. Convicted defendants could get the death penalty, and if they receive jail time, they would be given no credit for time in detention." ****************** |
|
comprende?! |
"You, sorabji posters, know you are going to have a short fall on your budget. You can either: a. steal more money to cover the projected shortfall (raise taxes)" So, when we pay for the government provided products and services we have, they're actually stealing from us? Does that mean, when I drive over an interstate highway, I'm stealing that product from the government? When the military goes off and defends my safety overseas, I'm stealing that service from the government? |
"c. continue as is, and hope for the best." That's what your president seems to want. |
"For those of you who think the world is rosey, I must remind you that decreases in the security and defense may not be in your best interest." Hell yeah! There might be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, for christ sake! |
Doesn't that mean you're stealing my money right now? You should refuse your paycheck! I mean, it's the only moral thing to do, considering you work for a thief. |
"that does not make a death camp." Hm. Let's see. It's a camp. They're planning on killing people there. When you kill someone, they die. Death camp. That's part of your "final solution" to terrorism, isn't it? |
|
|
|
the term concentration camp was part of the nazi final solution. |
FINALLY! |
The Army does not hold, nor does it claim to hold, the right to decide if the court rooms or anything else should be build WITHOUT DIRECT orders from the SecDef, DOJ, and JCS. This sums it up: "We have a number of plans that we work for short-term and long-term strategies but that's all they are — plans," Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller said in a telephone interview Monday. "About five people have been drafting several plans for the last six months, he said. It was unclear how much money it would take to sustain such a permanent mission. |
the thread is titled "US Plans Death Camp" you said "horseshit" to the notion. Its all right here did you miss your intel report that morning? Or was it just inconceivable that the US would do such a thing. That sentence sums it up? God, sometimes you floor me. Trace. Mr. Army Major General Happablap Miller is saying NOTHING in that statement...NOTHING! Typical military say nothing. Again, note, the title of the thread and related stories are "US *PLANS* DEATH CAMP". Major Poop says exactly the same thing. "PLANS" |
|
yes, i think it does |
have you not comprehended anything that was discussed in this thread? He's not saying "proposal". He's not saying "ideas". He saying "plans" that means intent to carry out! I have plans to attend lunch this afternoon. That means im going to lunch. Why are you being so dense about this. You called the idea horseshit and you were dead wrong spunk, stop haggling over semantics that have you chasing your tail. |
We also have plans for alien invasion, a nuclear war, astroid collision, etc. Seriously, we do. |
We have "plans" in case of the total colapse of the US banking system, and "plans" in case of virus outbreaks, you name it. Anybody who knows anything about the military knows that there are billions of plans made in a year and only hundreds are followed through. It does not mean a god damned thing until there is a signature on a contract, money on the table, and supplies have been purchased. Until then, they are nothing more then "plans". Before criticizing me on semantics, make sure you are on solid ground. The definition of a word in the civilian relm can differ greatly from the definition in the military world for the exact same word. |
|
does that mean you are always evacuating, or are these plans that will be put in motion when warrented by circumstance? |
|
having captured "combatants" in a detention camp awaiting trial, execution or release in remote bay in Cuba is not an extraordinary circumstance. Its a reality. |