Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 73
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    This is what you said that I responded to:
    Ugh, just let it go. The OP is saying there is no critique of Obama over Gitmo when there is in fact a fair bit. It is not as much as against bush, which is a no brainier, not a sign of hypocracy.


    This is entirely irrelevant to the issue. This is passing moral judgment. No argument for the ethics of the practice or Gitmo are argued for in this thread. You are responding by introducing a new argument about the ethics of it. For all you know Chad could disagree with having Gitmo. And for the record, I oppose Gitmo (or at least the idea of holding people indefinitely and without trial) and agree that it is contrary to our values as a nation. But this is irrelevant to the issue outlined in the op and in my arguments.
    It is not irrelevant because I am happy to express my extreme dissatisfaction with it at any relevant opportunity. It is not however the focus of my political life so I don't bring it up spontaneously. I am in fact actively demonstrating my willingness to speak out about it when the subject is broached. Funny thing is, back at the time I don't recall you chiming in on the close Gitmo side of the argument or any other conservative here.

    You and he are complaining about silence so I'm giving you some noise on the subject. There was even a post in this thread asking where the ODNers were who opposed Gitmo... Well I'm right here! Ready willing and able to say I'm disappointed Obama failed.

    You (as a group) are silent as proven above. Whatever the reasons are, there is indeed, a peculiar silence (as explained in the previous post).
    Proven? How exactly, what evidence has been presented here showing there is silence exactly? Care to post it again for me?.... waiting.....

    Hell I Challenge to support a claim. to show that the political left is "silent" on this issue in a quantitative fashion.

    You were wrong by a long shot.
    I wouldn't call it a long shot but do as you like.

    You are just pushing the goal posts back, it's intellectually dishonest.
    Your calling me dishonest now? Great, just what this discussion needed.

    The argument you were trying to make (that wasn't true) was that the previous objections to Gitmo under Bush isn't significant because it was just a minority of liberals anyway who objected to it. But this isn't true. Turns out it was a majority.
    That isn't what I was saying. I was saying that it was never all that widely supported an issue, even among liberals. It was a particular point of contention with the Bush administration that resonated with a class of civil libertarian minded people. The left is not some single unified front any more than the right is. I thought it was a minority on the left, I was wrong, its closer to an even split with the majority supporting closing it. Most voters probably don't even know that much about Gitmo, how it works, or the legal issues involved.

    It was a big deal for a short time, now its not. Issues like abortion, economic policy, crime, religion, civil rights, are mainstays of american politics, a particular prison is not.

    1) You offer no support whatsoever for it. This is merely your opinion.
    Yes a perception of my opinion, fascinating that. I'm explaining why I think I made the error.

    2) The fact remains that it was all over every major news paper, popular liberal blogs, and one of the primary discussions on debate sites like ours. And now...it's not being discussed at all save for a few sporadic exceptions.
    I remember some one or two threads here on the topic (though there are likely a few more than that), small potatoes. It was a common political topic in the news, no doubt. Its less so now. But the reasons are not because people didn't really care in the first place. It wasn't some political ruse or a lack of honest conviction on the subject.

    They are the same democrats that were in power during Bush's watch.
    Yep. So what? They still killed it and didn't support Obama's action. My point is that if their own party won't line up to kill the thing, its utterly hopeless. No amount of protest or moaning about it will work. The american public simply wants to lock up suspected terrorists and throw away the keys. That is the overwhelming consensus.

    There was a thought if they could get rid of bush that it could be closed. All you needed was a president with the will. Well we got one, he took steps on his very first day to close it, and he failed. The left was just plain wrong about what could be done.

    So your defense seems to be: "Obama tried, failed, so the entire left no longer saw it to be a big enough concern to continue to fight for it". In other words, as long as their man is in charge, it became less of a priority.
    No, that's not it.

    1. Its political suicide to ravage your own sides candidate on one issue so relative silence is politically smart
    2. He tried and failed proving the effort is doomed so why waste effort on it further?

    In order for such an argument to have any merit, we'd have to believe that if Bush tried to end it and failed, then liberals would have ceased their constant barrage of attacks on the matter.
    If Bush tried to close it and failed they would have turned on whomever blocked it... unless they were important democrats (see reason 1 above). They would still attack Bush for Iraq and any other thing they don't like but the focus would shift.

    You don't see many conservatives attacking Obama for being soft on terrorists... that is because he has kicked a lot of ass in that arena. It doesn't stop them from calling him a socialist though. But you can bet if he was "soft on terror" that they would be on him like white on rice for it.

    Surely...you don't think this is a reasonable possible outcome.
    I think political allies will go easy on each other because it is in their best interest, but that does not make they hypocrites or unprincipled.

    Right now, because it matters conservatives are all over Romney for his health care plan, calling it a huge failure and attacking it as the pattern for the evil Obama Care. If he wins the nomination there will still be muttering but most of that will go away and they will line up to support him in the general election because he's better than Obama.

    Some ass hat liberals will call the conservatives hypocrites for that, but I won't. Its just normal politics and the nature of political alliance.

    What the heck do you think this thread can possibly accomplish?

    Will liberals suddenly smack their heads and say "Oh man, we should totally be marching on Washington demanding they close Guantonimo even if it means the republicans sweep into power."

    Or is it just, "Here is a reason whey we feel morally superior because we never go easy on our own politicians for the sake of beating the democrats in elections."

    Just what exactly is being demonstrated here? From my chair it just looks like some conservatives trying to congratulate themselves by pointing out that liberals don't have the moral certitude to politically stab themselves in the head.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Last week talking to my wife about Obama and the patriot act. I happen to remember the conversation. I've also discussed it with other friends. Do you closely monitor liberal blogs and news sources of have regular political conversations about civil liberties with liberal friends? I don't, but I was still aware there was a great deal of outrage about his failure to close gitmo.
    It wasn't liberal blogs that I heard the "outrage" of Gitmo being open under Bush... Why should I compare apples and oranges? There is always a blogger out there saying something. But real issues stay issues as long as they persist. Gitmo still exists, therefore it wasn't a "real" issue. It is a politically insignificant issue and always has been, it was only trumped up to hurt the other guy, not in an effort to actually better the nation. (IE politics as usual.. by the media).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Face it, you wish liberals were in mass revolt against Obama so that conservatives could sweep him away in the presidential election. Its just wishful thinking on your part. I see liberals make the same kinds of cases asking why conservatives don't revolt against Reagan for raising taxes or increasing the debt or against some other candidate for whatever reason. Liberals are somewhat divided but they are pretty sure they don't want any of the GOP offerings when compared to Obama even if they think he is a sell out of one kind or another.
    Because it isn't the same thing. Conservatives want less taxes, but don't consider taxes themselves to be immoral.
    Liberal media objected to Gitmo on a moral basis, not a quantity basis.
    Same with debt, it isn't a moral objection that crosses all situations.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Just like the conservatives are super vocal about spending cuts except when its a republican proposing the spending increase on something republicans like spending money on or super angry about infidelity in Clinton but will let it slide with Gingrich.

    Its politics man, you pick your devil and you stand tough until the other devil looks better.
    If I may, this specific response has been addressed already.

    Quote Originally Posted by APOK POST #5
    2) One or two liberals will claim that the right is just as guilty (focusing on people instead of issues). Well, this is problematic because a) it's the infamous tu quoque fallacy and b) it's simply not true. Conservatives attack not only liberals for their liberal ideals and policies, but conservatives for their non-conservative ideals and policies. That is, there is a lot mud-slinging in the conservative camp directed at other conservatives when said conservatives aren't being conservative. It's extremely easy to find examples of this, Bush got hammered on several issues and is often regarded more as a statist than an actual conservative due to many of his policies (significantly increased federal spending, expansion of government, education policy is closer to that of a liberal than conservative philosophy, etc...).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    But... its not like Liberals are going to go and sabotage their own and elect Mit Romney because Obama didn't get the job done. The political system is too deeply decided for any one issue to cause mass defection and so long as you arn't willing to accept the opposite side, you grumble among your own rather than make a scene in public.
    This is the admission IMO that the media is basically in the bag for Obama.
    That is terribly disturbing.

    It was the media that repeated the mantra of Gitmo. It was the Media that made it a big issue and took all the polls and did stories on the polls (Ie manufacture news).
    The fact that it is no longer a story means they are in the Tank for Obama, and that it is just as you say, they don't want to sabotage their guy.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is the admission IMO that the media is basically in the bag for Obama.
    That is terribly disturbing.

    It was the media that repeated the mantra of Gitmo. It was the Media that made it a big issue and took all the polls and did stories on the polls (Ie manufacture news).
    The fact that it is no longer a story means they are in the Tank for Obama, and that it is just as you say, they don't want to sabotage their guy.
    Oh god were back to the "liberal media" again..

    Yep its all a giant conspiracy and the liberals are pulling all the strings in complete control of everything that right thinking people know is wrong.. ye sir, that's got to be how it is. UGH!!!

    Sorry gents you are all doomed the liberal meda owns Americas soul and we will all spiral to doom under a swarm of evil lies. All liberals are hypocritical morons and all atheists are immoral illogical madmen.

    I must stop, I'm getting despondent about these debates. No one seems to want to question themselves for even a moment.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #24
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Ugh, just let it go. The OP is saying there is no critique of Obama over Gitmo when there is in fact a fair bit.
    There is no "fair bit" of criticizing Obama. You and a couple bloggers is significantly smaller than the hoopla that existed during Bush. There's just no comparison Sig, sorry.

    It is not irrelevant because I am happy to express my extreme dissatisfaction with it at any relevant opportunity.
    You misunderstand. It is not irrelevant as an issue itself, it is irrelevant in a thread that makes no argument whatsoever about the moral value of the act/event.

    Chad even clarified that in his 2nd post. There is NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER about the moral nature of Gitmo. You have introduced this separate issue yourself in response to an entirely different issue.

    I get that you do not support Gitmo. Neither do I. It's entirely irrelevant to the argument of "There is a dramatic difference between the outcry given during Bush's term and that of Obama's even though Gitmo has been sustained under both administrations."

    You aren't properly identifying the issue of the argument Sig.

    Proven? How exactly, what evidence has been presented here showing there is silence exactly? Care to post it again for me?.... waiting....
    The argument is that it is non-existent from the political liberal machine. How do we support that? By pointing out the fact the dramatic difference between then (noisy) and now (silent).

    Your calling me dishonest now? Great, just what this discussion needed.
    I said the pushing of goalposts back by way of being shown your previous claim was incorrect, yet maintaining that it "really wasn't that wrong", even though it turns out that it was the case that it is a clear majority vs any significant minority, is intellectually dishonest. Sorry, but it is.

    Perhaps it is a defense mechanism? I don't know. But you were mistaken Sig, plain and simple. Why not just leave it at that and move on to the next point instead of trying to soft-sell it?

    That isn't what I was saying. I was saying that it was never all that widely supported an issue, even among liberals. It was a particular point of contention with the Bush administration that resonated with a class of civil libertarian minded people. The left is not some single unified front any more than the right is. I thought it was a minority on the left, I was wrong, its closer to an even split with the majority supporting closing it.
    But people opposing it is not the same as people being vocal about it. In other words, that poll that you provide says nothing about who was publicly objecting and criticizing Bush. Just because you oppose something Sig, doesn't mean you will report about it, push it in the media, protest, etc...

    And what is being claimed has nothing to do with the public's opinion about Gitmo, but rather the outcry that came from the politically vocal left. And it was the left who was making a fuss (and there was nothing wrong with them doing so IMO), and not some alliance of a variety of political ideologies.

    It was a big deal for a short time, now its not. Issues like abortion, economic policy, crime, religion, civil rights, are mainstays of american politics, a particular prison is not.
    I agree. There are various reasons for such issues to dissipate. It was a hot issue the entire time it was discovered until Bush left office. Obama used it as a major point in his campaign Sig. He knew how hot of an issue it was at the time. But when he took office, it was no longer an issue. For the louder political left (the political machine which represents the left and its ideologies yet is the vocal minority), it wasn't as important because their man was in charge now. End of story. That's all the argument from Chad and me is saying.

    Yes a perception of my opinion, fascinating that. I'm explaining why I think I made the error.
    You are right, my apologies. I misread the statement.

    But the reasons are not because people didn't really care in the first place. It wasn't some political ruse or a lack of honest conviction on the subject.
    OK, to clarify. It isn't necessarily that people did not care. It is the case that the value shifted from issue to the individual. That is, once Obama took office, it was more important to support him than it was to stick to the value of the issue. This tells us that the guy behind the issue matters more than the issue itself. I don't think anyone here argued that no one cared about the issue itself.

    Yep. So what? They still killed it and didn't support Obama's action. My point is that if their own party won't line up to kill the thing, its utterly hopeless. No amount of protest or moaning about it will work. The american public simply wants to lock up suspected terrorists and throw away the keys. That is the overwhelming consensus.
    No, it is that when Obama took office, the vocal left stopped caring enough about that issue and instead, care more about Obama. That is, it was ok for Obama because "he's our man", but not ok for Bush, because "he's the enemy".

    No, that's not it.

    1. Its political suicide to ravage your own sides candidate on one issue so relative silence is politically smart
    Which means they valued the man over the issue. Which has been our point the entire thread Sig.

    2. He tried and failed proving the effort is doomed so why waste effort on it further?
    OK, so the left only cares enough about issues that it can win easily? Else it's not worth the fuss?

    You don't see many conservatives attacking Obama for being soft on terrorists... that is because he has kicked a lot of ass in that arena. It doesn't stop them from calling him a socialist though.
    Right...that's because conservatives are arguing for the issue, not the man. They dig that he's been fairly strong in defense, but disagree with his fiscal policies (hence the name "socialist").

    But you can bet if he was "soft on terror" that they would be on him like white on rice for it.
    Of course. It's about the issue not the man.

    I think political allies will go easy on each other because it is in their best interest, but that does not make they hypocrites or unprincipled.
    This may be true to a certain extent, but as pointed out above, Bush was criticized about a great deal of issues from the right. In fact, most conservatives do not consider him to be an actual conservative at all due to his spending and stances on social issues and foreign policy.

    Right now, because it matters conservatives are all over Romney for his health care plan, calling it a huge failure and attacking it as the pattern for the evil Obama Care. If he wins the nomination there will still be muttering but most of that will go away and they will line up to support him in the general election because he's better than Obama.
    Doing so in the last leg of the race is quite different than doing it from the beginning.

    What the heck do you think this thread can possibly accomplish?
    It isn't my thread, you'll have to ask Chad. I'm merely furthering his argument. I personally would not have created it as it isn't my bag. But that doesn't mean I can't respond to it.

    It is probably just to add another example of the conservative's position that liberals are inconsistent and value the man behind the issue rather than the issue itself (meaning their man can do X, but not someone else's representative).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  5. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Oh god were back to the "liberal media" again..
    O god.. we are back to the "O god not the liberal media again" response to what appears to be a clear case of hypocrisy.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Yep its all a giant conspiracy and the liberals are pulling all the strings in complete control of everything that right thinking people know is wrong.. ye sir, that's got to be how it is. UGH!!!
    Holy crap! A story is run in a negative fashion day in and day out for 8 years while a republican is in office. Then Democrats take power, nothing changes and the story is gone from the front pages and falls to page 86B and unread Blogs..
    WELL EXCUUUUUUUUSE ME! for thinking something is wrong with this picture.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. #26
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Using Google, I searched Google News for "Guantanamo Bay" by year.

    First the caveats.

    1) This is going to include worldwide media, not that limited to the US. This is a disadvantage for my position because by including world news coverage rather than US coverage increases the number of news outlets which will not have the same implied biases (favoring Democrats) as US media outlets. In other words this decreases the sensitivity of my results.

    2) The search is unable to distinguish negative, positive, or neutral coverage.

    So here we are:

    2001: 93
    2002: 4640
    2003: 4130
    2004: 7020
    2005: 9210
    2006: 8150
    2007: 8280
    2008: 8710
    2009: 14900
    2010: 5400
    2011: 4780

    What this simple search says is that for the first couple of years of Bush, when Gitmo was first started, there was avg coverage. This then doubles for the last 5 years of Bushes presidency. It peaks in 2009 and then suddenly drops to levels not seen since the first years of Bush.

    If we exclude the first year of Obama's presidency, then its blatantly obvious that coverage has dropped off in the news. The anomaly is 2009, however there is a very obvious explanation. That was the year when Obama ordered Gitmo's closing, which would have sparked extensive and heavy coverage, both positive and negative. To test this hypothesis, I searched the news from 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the terms "obama closes guantanamo bay." Since both searches include "Guantanamo bay" these results will be included in the previous results.

    2007: 106
    2008: 1400
    2009: 7450
    2010: 1800
    2011: 11

    In other words fully half of all the news stories in 2009 that included "Guantanamo Bay" were related to the news that Obama was going to close it. One would presume that most of these would be positive coverage.

    To test for potential negative coverage, I searched for "Guantanamo Bay Abuse"

    2001: 1
    2002: 63
    2003: 98
    2004: 2350
    2005: 2590
    2006: 1200
    2007: 1060
    2008: 798
    2009: 1490
    2010: 521
    2011: 108

    Looking at these searches, news coverage of Guantanamo Bay abuse has DRAMATICALLY fallen in the last couple of years of the Obama administration.

    So no matter how you look at it, coverage of Gitmo in the news has FALLEN in the news since Obama took office. The only exception to this was his first year when he announced that he was "closing it" spiking a temporary surge in news. Otherwise coverage, particularly coverage that mentions "abuse" has drastically dropped.

    You can check each result by following the links below:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=left%...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=left%...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=left%...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=left%...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=left%....,cf.osb&cad=b

    http://www.google.com/search?q=left%...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=left%...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=left%...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=left%...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=left%...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

    http://www.google.com/search?q=media...w=1260&bih=589

  7. #27
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Lets narrow our search any further and search just the New York Times

    By year, hits for Guantanamo Bay at the New York Times website:

    2001: 13
    2002: 212
    2003: 190
    2004: 372
    2005: 400
    2006: 387
    2007: 312
    2008: 355
    2009: 486
    2010: 264
    2011: 222

    Looking at just the liberal New York Times, we find that it follows the exact same trend as seen in my google searches. During the last 5 years of Bush, news regarding Guantanamo never drops below 300 and is typically at the upper end of 300. It peaks in 2009, coinciding with news of Obama closing it, but then drops dramatically. In 2010, the number of items regarding Guantanamo is 48 fewer than at the lowest point of the last 5 years of Bush. In 2011 its 90.

    Now lets try the search again for "Guatanamo Bay abuse"

    2001: 1
    2002: 3
    2003: 11
    2004: 105
    2005: 133
    2006: 69
    2007: 38
    2008: 48
    2009: 72
    2010: 30
    2011: 19

    Again, we see a clear distinction between the last two years and the last 5 of Bush.

    Search links

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2001

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2002

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2003

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2004

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2005

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2006

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2007

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2008

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2009

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2010

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2011

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2001

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2002


    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2003


    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2004


    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2005


    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2006


    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2007


    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2008


    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2009


    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2010


    http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...=31&year2=2011

  8. #28
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Good job Chad. I was thinking about doing the same thing, but figured it would take too long and this isn't a topic I care enough about to do all that work.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  9. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I must stop, I'm getting despondent about these debates.No one seems to want to question themselves for even a moment.
    Sure we can take responsibly for ouselves. And one way to do that is to first be intellectually honest and not in denial that there's a problem in news media and then be brave enough and be willing to be part of the solution to bring about positive change.

    You're getting despondent, you say? No worries, this may cheer you up:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wRkzCW5qI
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  10. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    This thread is the same manifestation then displayed here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...milestones-now

    I killed that thread and I intend to do the same here.

    In the previous thread, it was all about why is there not any grim milestones reporting under Obama... and it ended when I asked, what grim milestones are you talking about ?

    So in this case, what is it that you want to see reporting on?

    US standing in the world? It's gone way up in the Obama years.
    GITMO? Fine, but what, is there news coming out of there?

    Challenge to support a claim.
    Unless you can find NEWS from GITMO which is important and relevant that does not get reported, you have no case.... Final.

    The plain truth is: the legality and the policies surrounding GITMO occured during the Bush years and it's then, of course, that the battle was fought and was front and center in the public debate. This no longer is the case. - Crickets....

    The obvious case that political angst is best expressed against the opposing party rather then one of your own is a given, and nothing to be surprised about, and certainly not hypocrisy. It would be hypocritical, I concede, in the case in which a particular individual ONLY cares about GITMO and nothing else. But for vast majority of liberals, they feel better about Obama then about Bush thus the angst is less.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  11. #31
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    This thread is the same manifestation then displayed here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...milestones-now

    I killed that thread and I intend to do the same here.

    In the previous thread, it was all about why is there not any grim milestones reporting under Obama... and it ended when I asked, what grim milestones are you talking about ?

    So in this case, what is it that you want to see reporting on?

    US standing in the world? It's gone way up in the Obama years.
    GITMO? Fine, but what, is there news coming out of there?

    Challenge to support a claim.
    Unless you can find NEWS from GITMO which is important and relevant that does not get reported, you have no case.... Final.

    The obvious case that political angst is best expressed against the opposing party rather then one of your own is a given, and nothing to be surprised about, and certainly not hypocrisy. It would be hypocritical, in the case in which a particular individual ONLY cares about GITMO and nothing else.

    But for vast majority of liberals, they feel better about Obama then about Bush thus the angst is less.
    1) See my last two posts for analysis of news coverage on Guantanamo Bay.

    2) You're last sentence says it all and confirms the entire premise of this thread. Liberals care less about that actual injustice of Guantanamo Bay than who is in office. As long as its their man, then they are willing to turn a blind eye to something like this. It only becomes a significant moral injustice when someone other than one of their own is in office.

  12. #32
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    1) Irrelevant it's not an analysis, it's statistics. Reporting on Iraq has gone way done as well, you're gonna complain about that as well? What effort have you put into detailing WHY should the reporting be high on GITMO ? Is there a debate going on ? Is there a big news coming out of there ? The answer is no.

    2) That's an insignificant win, to point out the obvious.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  13. #33
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    1) Irrelevant it's not an analysis, it's statistics. Reporting on Iraq has gone way done as well, you're gonna complain about that as well ? What effort have you put into detailing WHY should the reporting be high on GITMO ? Is there a debate going on ? Is there a big news coming out of there ? The answer is no.

    2) That's a very insignificant win, to point out the obvious.
    1) Why shouldn't reporting be as high on Gitmo? Most of the complaints regarding Gitmo from the left was that the indefinite holding of prisoners captured on the battlefield was a human rights abuse, that and the use of military tribunals to try them. Both of these are still as true today as it was under Bush.....nothing, absolutely nothing has changed. In fact Obama RESUMED the use of military tribunals after promising not too. One would assume that this should instigate as much coverage and outrage as it received under Bush. In fact we can look at how the coverage over this specific matter compares across years. "Searching for Guantanamo Bay Military Tribunals"

    2003: 534
    2004: 1430
    2005: 1090
    2006: 1460
    2007: 2600
    2008: 757
    2009: 929
    2010: 146
    2011: 886

    Maybe you liberals haven't noticed, but the EXACT same **** that went on at Guantanamo Bay in 2004-2007 goes on in 2009-2011. If it was news worthy then its news worthy now.

    Iraq is a copout. By the time Obama took office we were already reducing troop number and last year we left completely. Your argument would be valid if we had actually closed Guantanamo, quit military tribunals, all the stuff the left hated about Gitmo, but we havent. Its still chugging along the same. The difference is now liberals don't care.


    2) Hypocrisy should be pointed out, regardless of how obvious. And yes its hypocrisy. The very same critics who hated it under Bush, which includes Obama have now adopted the same practices and polling shows that now a majority of liberals support Gitmo. That is an about face from only 3 years ago.

    "The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of President George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z3

  14. #34
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    1) Why shouldn't reporting be as high on Gitmo? Most of the complaints regarding Gitmo from the left was that the indefinite holding of prisoners captured on the battlefield was a human rights abuse, that and the use of military tribunals to try them.
    That my friend, is a case of you believing in your own crap.
    The reporting was not high back then because of complaints from the left, but rather because there was a public debate about GITMO that culminated into several Supreme Court Hearings on the subject. And shock!!!! this causes much reporting in the press. This is no longer the case.

    Unless of course, you can show that back then, reporting was solely driven by the Left outrages and not from actual news or unresolved legal matters surrounding the GITMO and the treatment of prisoners, then you have no case.

    I see your statistics and your graph, but I challenge you actually make the point that there is now, unreported and important news. Inversely, I challenge you to demonstrate that back then, you can show that reporting was not relevant, and only partisan.

    After you fail that challenge, you can revisit point number two and appreciate how hollow it really is.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  15. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    There is no "fair bit" of criticizing Obama. You and a couple bloggers is significantly smaller than the hoopla that existed during Bush. There's just no comparison Sig, sorry.
    I certainly don't know anyone who cared about gitmo then, and doesn't now. You decided you wanted to define this about what appears in the major media so fine, well do that. And yes, its not a big news story these days compared to what it was when Bush was in office, or the first year of Obama's administration. I'll get into that in responding to Chad's excellent post later since he has given us data we can actually talk about in a meaningful way.

    You misunderstand. It is not irrelevant as an issue itself, it is irrelevant in a thread that makes no argument whatsoever about the moral value of the act/event.
    I didn't say it was irrelevant as an issue. Imagine I posted that Christians never say they love god. And then a christian decided to post that they love god. And then I said this thread wasn't about weather you love god or not but that Christians don't talk about it. You would think I was nuts. Here I was saying no one cares, you said you care, and you said that was irrelevant to the discussion. Now you are going to tell me its different. Yes its different, its an illustration of my feeling transposed so you might better understand me.

    Do you understand that I saw a thread I felt said no one cares about gitmo, so it made some sense for me to insist that I and others I can point to care about the issue even today, even while Obama is president? Is that clear?

    You aren't properly identifying the issue of the argument Sig.
    Apok, we all make our own arguments, we can argue any damned thing we want to. We don't always understand one another clearly. It seems to me You and Chadn have two somewhat different positions, Mindtrap has yet another.

    The number one thing I intend to protest here, is that the people who opposed Gitmo are hypocrites because they are not mounting a political movement in the latter part of Obama's first term. I am trying to do this by pointing out that the political/moral opinion remains, even though the media attention and level of political activism for the issue is not what it was. I am doing that by pointing to people who still care about the issue, including myself, and explaining why it would be counter productive for us to attack Obama based on the issue. Is this confusing somehow?

    The argument is that it is non-existent from the political liberal machine. How do we support that? By pointing out the fact the dramatic difference between then (noisy) and now (silent).
    Fine. But the OP was not so specific as to cite the political machine. I don't know exactly what he meant because its not much of an OP, he has since made an excellent post that clearly outlines and supports a specific claim.

    Perhaps it is a defense mechanism? I don't know. But you were mistaken Sig, plain and simple. Why not just leave it at that and move on to the next point instead of trying to soft-sell it?
    Because it is a debate and because I don't like making mistakes. And I feel the underlying point remains valid, which is that on the political left, opposition to Gitmo is far from unified. Especially when you compare it to the right and the middle which are far more solidly in support of it according to the polls. This is not an issue like abortion or welfare where the lines are really clear, its more like gun control or social security reform where the advocates are pretty badly out numbered and face internal opposition as well as external. Surely you can agree that 53% in your own party and a revolt in the sennate isn't exactly a gang-buster political issue.

    But people opposing it is not the same as people being vocal about it. In other words, that poll that you provide says nothing about who was publicly objecting and criticizing Bush. Just because you oppose something Sig, doesn't mean you will report about it, push it in the media, protest, etc...
    And when I tried to make this same point you jumped on me for not having any proof. That's the sort of thing that gets frustrating. Yes, I agree. There is a difference and it is the difference between weather these people are Hypocrites or not. I will not argue the left is not politically expedient on this or any issue. But I will argue on this issue that those who railed against Bush for gitmo are not hypocrites because they are now not railing on Obama. That is my central case, you want to say the are hypocrites, show me they are, you don't want to claim that as the OP does in its final statement, fine.

    And what is being claimed has nothing to do with the public's opinion about Gitmo, but rather the outcry that came from the politically vocal left. And it was the left who was making a fuss (and there was nothing wrong with them doing so IMO), and not some alliance of a variety of political ideologies.
    Hypocrite:
    1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
    2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

    And as is often the case Wikipidia does a bit better job with it that is very pointed to this discussion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
    Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have.[1] Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.[1]
    Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of "hypocrisy" in Rambler No. 14:
    Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.[2]

    If they are hypocrites then they don't actually think that gitmo is wrong, they were attacking Bush just because it was something they thought he was vulnerable on. They don't actually care about the rule of law of or civil rights, it was just a tool.

    I'm saying this is not true at all. The reason for the relative Quiet is twofold, strategic political alliance, and practical realization the effort to close it is doomed to fail due to overwhelming opposition. It has not shut them up entirely, but they have focused their attentions elsewhere.

    Unless someone can show or makes the case that their feelings were in-genuine, they are categorically not hypocrites on this issue.

    Now... Do you or do you not think those who were vocal about Gitmo before, but are less so now, are Hypocrites?

    I agree. There are various reasons for such issues to dissipate. It was a hot issue the entire time it was discovered until Bush left office. Obama used it as a major point in his campaign Sig. He knew how hot of an issue it was at the time. But when he took office, it was no longer an issue.
    It was. His first day in office he introduced a bill to fund its closure. First day! Just about the first thing he did in his presidency. What the heck more could we expect of him? It failed, and it did so spectacularly with his own party shooting it down first. While I'm disappointed, why should I be angry at him about it and make a fuss?

    For the louder political left (the political machine which represents the left and its ideologies yet is the vocal minority), it wasn't as important because their man was in charge now. End of story. That's all the argument from Chad and me is saying.
    Chad said they are hypocrites. You have not exactly but neither have you refuted that so I felt you were arguing for his position. So that is not all you and Chad are saying until you say differently.

    OK, to clarify. It isn't necessarily that people did not care. It is the case that the value shifted from issue to the individual. That is, once Obama took office, it was more important to support him than it was to stick to the value of the issue. This tells us that the guy behind the issue matters more than the issue itself. I don't think anyone here argued that no one cared about the issue itself.
    We are getting close here. I mostly agree with what you just said. But....
    A. This means they are not hypocrites

    B. It means there was a shift of priority from a political issue to political power or that political power was always the primary motivation which may well be true though one can always say the motivation behind power is that you can enact your agenda and both parties agendas are somewhat varied.

    C. You say "the guy" and that makes me think of personal traits. I don't think personal traits of Obama are paramount. I think the political alliance he represents is paramount. If Obama went hog wild conservative, no matter how much folks might like "the guy" he would be done for as a democrat and under harsh attack from the left. He has been rather moderate in many cases and taken flack for it, but not so much he's been abandoned. He is rather charming and handsome, but that has always been a bonus rather than the base of political support once you are in office.

    I have been willing to say since moment one that there are strong political motivations at play that often trump individual issues, but this is true for both the republicans and democrats and it has always been like that. This is a decent illustration of that.

    But hypocrisy it ain't.

    Which means they valued the man over the issue. Which has been our point the entire thread Sig.
    What is your case that it is the man and not the party? After all, Obama actually made steps to close it, it was senate democratic leadership that stopped it from happening. They have remained largely immune as well.

    OK, so the left only cares enough about issues that it can win easily? Else it's not worth the fuss?
    Not cares, remember this is about political action and media attention according to you. I've demonstrated I care, and that others care, even you seem to care about it, but none of us are leading marches on Washington over it. There is a difference between caring and taking action.

    When it comes to taking action, of course you should be pragmatic and wasting effort on a loosing proposition is only rational if you care about that issue above all others, and that is generally when your personal identity is at stake.

    If you want to insist this is about the political machine, stick to that please.

    Right...that's because conservatives are arguing for the issue, not the man. They dig that he's been fairly strong in defense, but disagree with his fiscal policies (hence the name "socialist").
    And liberals praised Bush for his foreign aid to Africa. Both sides sometimes give credit where it is due. And both sides overlook flaws in their candidates to make sure they get and retain office. Do you disagree?

    Of course. It's about the issue not the man.
    No, because when bush was soft on terror (prior to 9-11) there was no great widespread conservative outcry. There were some who attacked him for it, but the right wing political machine was not on the warpath against bush. And that is because its bad politics to roast your own leaders while they hold office.

    This may be true to a certain extent, but as pointed out above, Bush was criticized about a great deal of issues from the right. In fact, most conservatives do not consider him to be an actual conservative at all due to his spending and stances on social issues and foreign policy.
    And yet the mainstream political machine was not on the war path putting out press memos and talking points to attack bush. It was grass roots and internal to the party. And during the entire Obama presidency the internal liberal blogs and news letters have been very very critical of Obama for bailing out banks, giving up on gitmo, supporting the patriot act, not doing single payer health care and many other pet issues. They call him a sell out and a betrayer to the liberal cause. Its not on CNN because its not news when parties grumble among their own on blogs and in political rags few people read. Its news when they take out full page adds attacking people and going on press campaigns.

    Doing so in the last leg of the race is quite different than doing it from the beginning.
    There are no democratic candidates other than Obama. If there were you can bet they would be making those attacks.

    The only other declared candidate is Terry Randal, a pro-life, anti GLBT candidate who seeks to win over tea party members.
    http://terryforpresident.com/

    He's not big news and he's an issue candidate with a picture of a fetus next to his on the top of his site.

    I wish him the best but he's not going to cause any waves anyone will much care about.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #36
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    That my friend, is a case of you believing in your own crap.
    The reporting was not high back then because of complaints from the left, but rather because there was a public debate about GITMO that culminated into several Supreme Court Hearings on the subject. And shock!!!! this causes much reporting in the press. This is no longer the case.

    Unless of course, you can show that back then, reporting was solely driven by the Left outrages and not from actual news or unresolved legal matters surrounding the GITMO and the treatment of prisoners, then you have no case.

    I see your statistics and your graph, but I challenge you actually make the point that there is unreported, important news. Inversely, I challenge you to demonstrate that back then, you can show that reporting was not relevant, and only partisan.

    After you failed that challenge, you can revisit point number two and appreciate how hollow it really is.
    Those supreme court cases where in 2006 and 2008. If so much of the news coverage was due to these cases as you claim, then we would expect news coverage to be highest in those two years. Does the data support this? Lets look again:

    2001: 93
    2002: 4640
    2003: 4130
    2004: 7020
    2005: 9210
    2006: 8150
    2007: 8280
    2008: 8710
    2009: 14900
    2010: 5400
    2011: 4780

    The highest year under Bush was 2005. 2007 had more coverage than 2006. In other words there is no spike in either 2006 or 2008, which we would expect if the Supreme Court cases were indeed a contributing factor.

    Furthermore I have effectively argued that there is news worthy coverage under Obama as under Bush. There is the resumption of Military Tribunals, a major issue of contention for liberals during the Bush years.

    You must also be skimming over my posts rather than really reading them. Terms such as "abuse" are more likely to imply negative coverage than positive. By including this in the search we can see if there is more coverage of abuse under each term:

    2001: 1
    2002: 3
    2003: 11
    2004: 105
    2005: 133
    2006: 69
    2007: 38
    2008: 48
    2009: 72
    2010: 30
    2011: 19

    I can play this game all day Vandaler. In fact I can and will continue to research it and diplay the stats.

    Challenge to support a claim. Support your claim that there is less "news-worthy" items under Obama regarding Gitmo.

    Challenge to support a claim. Support your claim that negative coverage has not lessened under Obama.

  17. #37
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Using Google, I searched Google News for "Guantanamo Bay" by year.
    Great post Chad, but I don't see it supporting your OP very well.

    Instead it paints a clear picture of the natural cycle of the story. It starts out smallish with folks finding out about it and forming opinions. When Bush's second term comes up it heats up as it becomes a political issue people can vote on. It remains a hot topic through his second term, there are court cases and a lot of policy setting going on.

    After Obama is elected and he tries to close it the coverage nearly doubles again. Of course you don't expect liberals to go ape **** attacking Obama while he is doing what he promised to do. The media is covering the issue heavily at that point because something significant is happening in the issue. There is also a big fight and the media loves nothing more than a big fight.

    Obama looses, the supporters and opponents mostly back their bags after the battle and go home defeated or victorious. Some remain (about like the first two years of activity) but the big fight is decided and there is not much for the media to talk about.

    That is the story I see in those numbers. I don't see any hypocrisy.

    We have only the following facts....
    1. The peak of coverage was during Obamas presidency when he tried to enact his promise to close it and a big fight happened.
    2. The second largest time was during bush's second term when it was fought in the courts and there was an election struggle against the a supporter of gitmo.

    Do you think it would be realistic for opponents of gitmo to attack the only politician that actually tried to close Gitmo on the even of his re-election campaign? Really?

    ---------- Post added at 09:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    O god.. we are back to the "O god not the liberal media again" response to what appears to be a clear case of hypocrisy.
    Yep, and if you want to show hypocrisy get busy with that. The whole liberal media canard is a waste of time here.

    Holy crap! A story is run in a negative fashion day in and day out for 8 years while a republican is in office. Then Democrats take power, nothing changes and the story is gone from the front pages and falls to page 86B and unread Blogs..
    WELL EXCUUUUUUUUSE ME! for thinking something is wrong with this picture.
    [/QUOTE]

    Ya, nothing changes except the president of the united states tries to close it! And there was a near doubling of media coverage when he did so and when he failed.

    What the media likes to do is cover fights. Whatever kind of fight you got, so long as the sides are out and at it, the media will be there with a camera and commentary about each side and who is winning. Their coverage peaked during Obamas administration when the battle came to a head. And it near peaked prior to that when this issue was in the supreme court. Fights, not some liberal bias. If the "liberal media" was taking sides in this fight, they lost big time. So much for their vaunted influence.... But from most of the coverage I saw, they tended not to take sides and just reported what the fight was, human rights vs national security and they let the public decide where they fell on that spectrum.

    ---------- Post added at 09:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Sure we can take responsibly for ouselves. And one way to do that is to first be intellectually honest and not in denial that there's a problem in news media and then be brave enough and be willing to be part of the solution to bring about positive change.
    Iv'e debated here time and time again saying there are serious problems with the news media. I disagree that the problem is they are too liberal. I say the problem is they pander to the public's desire to be entertained and tittilated. In this case I would say they didn't care one way or another about if peoples rights were respected or if the country was safe or not. They cared there was a big fight going on and they wanted to give people front row seats for it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  18. #38
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Great post Chad, but I don't see it supporting your OP very well.

    Instead it paints a clear picture of the natural cycle of the story. It starts out smallish with folks finding out about it and forming opinions. When Bush's second term comes up it heats up as it becomes a political issue people can vote on. It remains a hot topic through his second term, there are court cases and a lot of policy setting going on.

    After Obama is elected and he tries to close it the coverage nearly doubles again. Of course you don't expect liberals to go ape **** attacking Obama while he is doing what he promised to do. The media is covering the issue heavily at that point because something significant is happening in the issue. There is also a big fight and the media loves nothing more than a big fight.

    Obama looses, the supporters and opponents mostly back their bags after the battle and go home defeated or victorious. Some remain (about like the first two years of activity) but the big fight is decided and there is not much for the media to talk about.

    That is the story I see in those numbers. I don't see any hypocrisy.

    We have only the following facts....
    1. The peak of coverage was during Obamas presidency when he tried to enact his promise to close it and a big fight happened.
    2. The second largest time was during bush's second term when it was fought in the courts and there was an election struggle against the a supporter of gitmo.

    Do you think it would be realistic for opponents of gitmo to attack the only politician that actually tried to close Gitmo on the even of his re-election campaign? Really?
    #2 is not supported by the data. The supreme court cases were in 2006 and 2008. The peak under Bush was during 2005 and there is little difference between 2006, 2007, and 2008, with 2007 actually being higher than 2006. In other words there is no peak in reporting due to supreme court cases under Bush.

    I think when you actually consider the opinion of Democratic voters under Obama versus Bush, its clear that Democrats have switched gears and no longer see this as a moral issue. That this coincides with reduced news coverage of it only further supports my argument.

    A majority of Democrats now support keeping it open. A couple of years ago the majority supported its closing.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatch...san-consensus/

  19. #39
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    2) Hypocrisy should be pointed out, regardless of how obvious. And yes its hypocrisy. The very same critics who hated it under Bush, which includes Obama have now adopted the same practices and polling shows that now a majority of liberals support Gitmo. That is an about face from only 3 years ago.

    "The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of President George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z3
    That evidence does not say that there was a significant change of opinion on Gitmo among democrats only that some majority supported closing it. I did post a pre 2009 poll that showed a small majority supported closing it among all democrats but the numbers were not greatly different than these. A shift of only 10% would cover the change. This issue has not been unified on the left, though the left in its political efforts tries not to eat its own tail.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  20. #40
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    That evidence does not say that there was a significant change of opinion on Gitmo among democrats only that some majority supported closing it. I did post a pre 2009 poll that showed a small majority supported closing it among all democrats but the numbers were not greatly different than these. A shift of only 10% would cover the change. This issue has not been unified on the left, though the left in its political efforts tries not to eat its own tail.
    A shift is a shift Sigfried and frankly a 10% shift is significant, particularly in opinion polls. You can try to play down the shift of Democratic opinion all you want, but its a fact that Democrats now feel differently about Guantanamo Bay under Obama than Bush.

    Which is understandable if you are more concerned with politics than anything else. I understand that. Why should you guys shoot yourselves in the foot? Once again you admit, just like Vandaler, that politics is more important than the issue itself and that its ok to ignore a cause when its your guy in office. I get that.

 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Religion
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: June 15th, 2012, 11:47 AM
  2. Closing Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Public Schools
    By evensaul in forum General Debate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2008, 07:15 PM
  3. Christianity: Thou Shalt Not Steal
    By BionicSeahorse in forum Religion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 24th, 2008, 12:38 PM
  4. Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp
    By sjjs in forum Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2004, 11:19 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •