Obama Dumps Scientist Who Questioned Diversity

[rdean]

So let me get this straight:
Because he's a Leading Scientist, he isn't "allowed" to post his own opinions on his own website?

And, extropolating ~ he isn't allowed to Think Something, and then set out to prove/disprove it? THAT would be considered, well, anathema? Please.
He's a scientist that thinks that homosexuality is abnormal? The absolute logic of hetrosexual relationships being the basis for all bisexual species of life on the planet is REFUTABLE? Knock me down with a feather, 'cuz I must have missed That Day at school.

Just off the top of my head, I truly have to wEnder about "diversity EFFORTS." WTF, folks? Are people being somehow manipulated to diversify our races? Don't we just do that, naturally? Then again, probably the Best Way to get two folks to "mate" is to tell them they CAN't!

But, Hey! I'm just some Christian, geezerette, (don't know if I'm right or left, yet ~ see an earlier post), nurse person, running amok amongst the intellectuals, so.

For the "simple" everything is "simple". If sex were only about sex, then good, the answer would always be "simple".
Nature has taught us that sex is more than just "reproduction". Many other creatures have "sex" outside of reproduction. Can you guess why?

 

[rdean]

Hey Rdean your hero Obama has managed to create Bagram as the new Gitmo. Remind us again how when Bush used Gitmo that was bad but Obama using Bagram is good.

link?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...t-to-detain-people-with-no-habeas-review.html

There ya go.

Your, "ah ha - gotcha" is wrong on so many levels.

First all, Obama won the right to prevent habeas in Bagram, but there is no evidence that he ever had anyone "moved" there. The three individuals listed in the article that applied for review have been there for 8 years.

Out of all the detainees under Bush, only three have ever been convicted by Military Tribunal - ONLY THREE. And two of those were LET GO. Those two were tied to the "Pantie Bomber".

Out of the hundreds tried in US courts, there has been a 100% conviction rate and NONE have been let go. NONE have escaped.

Obama has been hamstrung by Republcians with their terror and fear tactics. Surely you must agree. They have called for "Military Tribunal" with it's dismal success rate. Would you got through Military Tribunal where only three are convicted and two let go? Guantanamo has been a black eye to American Foreign policy. Obama wanted to close it. Republicans have worked hard to keep that failure open, and they scared the American Public into supporting them.

Bagram is in Afghanistan. Anyone held there since Obama became president was captured there.

But what is it you expect him to do? He is not only fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban, but also Republcians. There is nothing he can do at this time about war prisoners except keep them over there in prison. Republicans have undercut him. They have offered no suggestion. They have frightening the American People. Where is their patriotism?

What do you think he should do?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

link?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...t-to-detain-people-with-no-habeas-review.html

There ya go.

Your, "ah ha - gotcha" is wrong on so many levels.

First all, Obama won the right to prevent habeas in Bagram, but there is no evidence that he ever had anyone "moved" there. The three individuals listed in the article that applied for review have been there for 8 years.

Out of all the detainees under Bush, only three have ever been convicted by Military Tribunal - ONLY THREE. And two of those were LET GO. Those two were tied to the "Pantie Bomber".

Out of the hundreds tried in US courts, there has been a 100% conviction rate and NONE have been let go. NONE have escaped.

Obama has been hamstrung by Republcians with their terror and fear tactics. Surely you must agree. They have called for "Military Tribunal" with it's dismal success rate. Would you got through Military Tribunal where only three are convicted and two let go? Guantanamo has been a black eye to American Foreign policy. Obama wanted to close it. Republicans have worked hard to keep that failure open, and they scared the American Public into supporting them.

Bagram is in Afghanistan. Anyone held there since Obama became president was captured there.

But what is it you expect him to do? He is not only fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban, but also Republcians. There is nothing he can do at this time about war prisoners except keep them over there in prison. Republicans have undercut him. They have offered no suggestion. They have frightening the American People. Where is their patriotism?

What do you think he should do?

Hundreds of people have been tried in court, and there is a 100% conviction rate? Where the fuck do you get your figures? Even Obama does not go that far out of line with the truth.

New York University's Center on Law and Security has been tracking such cases for years and throws a wide net. In its "Terrorist Trial Report Card: September 11, 2001-September 11, 2009," it finds that the Department of Justice has indicted 828 defendants on terrorism-related charges. Of the 593 that have been resolved, 523 were convicted on some charge either at trial or by plea.


Terrorism-related can be a broad definition, though, and can include immigration violations, giving false statements and other relatively minor charges. And so the report breaks out cases in which defendants are charged under core terrorism or national security statutes. Those are bona fide, serious charges. Now you're talking about 174 people convicted under those statutes; plus another 24 charged with those statutes, but convicted on lesser crimes. That also gets to the president's figure.

Let us take a look at that. this means if we use the broadest possible definition of terrorism to justify your wild claims, then there have been 523 convictions out of 593 prosecutions, which puts the conviction rate at 88.2%

But how many of those 523 convictions are actually terrorism related in a way that is pertinent to this discussion?

There are probably less than a dozen cases against people in the Islamic jihadist framework who have been convicted in federal court of serious terrorism-related crimes comparable to many of the Guantanamo detainees, Greenberg said.


Nonetheless, there are some, she said, including Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber"; Bryant Neal Vinas, an American convicted of supporting al-Qaida plots in Afghanistan and the United States; Mohammed Jabarah, a Canadian who was active in al-Qaida and convicted of terrorism-related offenses; Shahawar Matin Siraj, a Pakistani-American who plotted to bomb Herald Square in New York; and Mohammed Junaid Babar, a Pakistani-American convicted of terrorist-related offenses in New York, and who testified in 2006 against a group of men accused of plotting bomb attacks in London.

Looks like your numbers are even more fanciful than Obama's.

PolitiFact | Obama claims Bush administration got 190 terrorism convictions in federal court

 

[RetiredGySgt]

link?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...t-to-detain-people-with-no-habeas-review.html

There ya go.

Your, "ah ha - gotcha" is wrong on so many levels.

First all, Obama won the right to prevent habeas in Bagram, but there is no evidence that he ever had anyone "moved" there. The three individuals listed in the article that applied for review have been there for 8 years.

Out of all the detainees under Bush, only three have ever been convicted by Military Tribunal - ONLY THREE. And two of those were LET GO. Those two were tied to the "Pantie Bomber".

Out of the hundreds tried in US courts, there has been a 100% conviction rate and NONE have been let go. NONE have escaped.

Obama has been hamstrung by Republcians with their terror and fear tactics. Surely you must agree. They have called for "Military Tribunal" with it's dismal success rate. Would you got through Military Tribunal where only three are convicted and two let go? Guantanamo has been a black eye to American Foreign policy. Obama wanted to close it. Republicans have worked hard to keep that failure open, and they scared the American Public into supporting them.

Bagram is in Afghanistan. Anyone held there since Obama became president was captured there.

But what is it you expect him to do? He is not only fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban, but also Republcians. There is nothing he can do at this time about war prisoners except keep them over there in prison. Republicans have undercut him. They have offered no suggestion. They have frightening the American People. Where is their patriotism?

What do you think he should do?

Ya Obama had the Justice Department argue the case for shits and giggles right? Anyone reading this can now have one more nail to convince them you are a koolaid drinking MORON. Obama STATED he wanted EVERYONE to have a right to question their detainment and that anything less was a violation of US Standards and the Constitution. THEN he has the Justice Department file suit to deny JUST those rights to anyone he wants by shipping them to Bagram. And you claim he did no such thing simply because you have no names of anyone he has done it to yet.

In that thread I said people like you would pooh pooh this, can I call them or what?

 

[RadiomanATL]

I'm just wondering what the hell plugging an oil leak has to do with a scientists feelings on diversity or homosexuality.

If he has the scientific credentials to be on the team, he should be. We aren't looking to him to solve racism in America. We want him to plug a hole a mile under the ocean.

Just because you don't like his social stances does not mean that he isn't the best for this job. Oil and fish don't give a flying fuck what you think about homosexuals.

 

[logical4u]

I'm just wondering what the hell plugging an oil leak has to do with a scientists feelings on diversity or homosexuality.

If he has the scientific credentials to be on the team, he should be. We aren't looking to him to solve racism in America. We want him to plug a hole a mile under the ocean.

Just because you don't like his social stances does not mean that he isn't the best for this job. Oil and fish don't give a flying fuck what you think about homosexuals.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm just wondering what the hell plugging an oil leak has to do with a scientists feelings on diversity or homosexuality.

If he has the scientific credentials to be on the team, he should be. We aren't looking to him to solve racism in America. We want him to plug a hole a mile under the ocean.

Just because you don't like his social stances does not mean that he isn't the best for this job. Oil and fish don't give a flying fuck what you think about homosexuals.

When you put it in this perspective it all makes sense....this administration could care less about results. It's all about image and racism. They could care less whether the leak gets plugged...as long as they look good to their perceived supporters while talking about it that's all that matters.

 

[Oddball]

I'm just wondering what the hell plugging an oil leak has to do with a scientists feelings on diversity or homosexuality.

If he has the scientific credentials to be on the team, he should be. We aren't looking to him to solve racism in America. We want him to plug a hole a mile under the ocean.

Just because you don't like his social stances does not mean that he isn't the best for this job. Oil and fish don't give a flying fuck what you think about homosexuals.

Liberoidal politically correct math: An ounce of image = a pound of results.

 

[fyrenza]

For the "simple" everything is "simple". If sex were only about sex, then good, the answer would always be "simple".
Nature has taught us that sex is more than just "reproduction". Many other creatures have "sex" outside of reproduction. Can you guess why?

They're already pregnant, but still horny?

For some animals, it's a form of dominance and coersion; for others, it signifies an intimate sharing of personal space;

but for ALL bisexual entities, the bottom line REASON that they feel the Drive to have sex is in order to procreate.

Where we seem to come a-cropper is that folks seem to think the deviations are every bit as valid as the original concept, and that just isn't so.

Seals have sex. Penguins have sex. By your logic, seal/penguin sex is nothing more than a slight variation on the original concept, and you see nothing wrong with it;

however, seal/penguin sex is a MAJOR Deviation in the Big Scheme of Things.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Sex pest' seal attacks penguin

Another way of looking at might be:

I have an old toilet and decide to use it as a planter. I put it out on the front lawn, fill it with compost, plant beautiful flowering plants in it and it looks FAB!

Regardless of WHAT all I did to change that toilet into a planter, IT IS STILL A TOILET.

It was STILL made to function in a certain way, and to fulfill a certain purpose.

No matter how you try to complexify it up,

there is an underlying TRUTH to the purpose of everything.