« The End of Rabbit Ears, a Billion more Broadband Users - Part II | Main | Nanotechnology : Bubble, Bust, ....Boom? »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Guantanamo Meets Geneva Convention Rules:



What is your source for the following statement?

"So it turns out that President Obama will not be closing down the Guantanamo Bay detention center."


He won't do it, certainly not in the next 12 months. Just see.

Aric Meyer

I don't have time for a full comment, but since when did it become legitimate for the accused to act as their own judge?


I don't have time for a full comment, but since when did it become legitimate for the accused to act as their own judge?

When the accuser cannot answer for hypocrisies and inconsistencies that the accused points out.

On a legal basis, why is no one from The Hague or UN trying George W. Bush and Barack Obama for violation of Geneva conventions?


What are the reasons for closing Gitmo?

1) We toruture people there (false).

2) It violates the Geneva concention (false).

3) The people there are not really all that bad (false).

4) It will make America safer (false).

4) You and your pals previously lied about all of the above, and promised to close it (true).

So Obama will close it. QED.

Olives and Arrows

I tend to agree with Geoman. Barack Obama is at core a Marxist, so if closing Gitmo is harmful to America that is the route he will probably take. GK is likey correct that it will take a year or more, though. After all, another characteristic of Marxism is its slow and inefficient movement.


"Be sure to access these links quickly when it is needed to crush a fifth-column leftist in a debate."

Sorry, but as a fellow resident of the Bay Area I find it pretty useless to even attempt to 'win' debates with the Borg Hive Mind Whack Jobs Who Dominate The Region with minor details like actual facts.

All you can hope for is that others who are witnessing the debate might pick up the logic.

Geoman's breakdown is a more accurate reflection of how it always goes down.

Now, having declared that as a Universal Law, I have been noticing lately quite a few exceptions to it. For example, co-workers of mine who used to sing the Obama Kool-Aide Song are now piping up in ways that surprise the hell out of me. They are starting to figure out that they have been had (did ANYONE learn from Clinton? Obviously not). The more astute ones have even figured out that when Obama and the Pelosicrats refer to nailing the 'rich', that means just about everyone 'middle class' in the Bay Area. I have been quite surprised by the number and increasing frequency of these changes of heart and the corresponding outbursts. So much so, that the other co-workers - who will never see Obama as flawed even if they saw footage of him molesting a boy scout on TV - instantly turn to scowl at me when the 'traitors' have their aforementioned outbursts, as if I took over their minds or something and caused it.

Surprised until I learned that Obama's disapproval ratings jumped 100% from those of last month's (12% to 24% now). I was just seeing that play out at the water cooler.

So, there is hope. Sanity just could be making a comeback. Just don't look for it in 'winning' debates with those who aren't really 'debating' you at all.


"Thus, we will continue to enjoy a reduced risk of terrorist attacks on US soil"

Open or closed, foreign dialogue, diplomacy, and foreign policy is what will really stop terrorists.



I don't know. Remember that there is the minority of religious fifth-columnists, but then the majority who are just 'fashion sheep' and say something in the hopes of maintaining social conformity, but quickly retreat once someone engages them with facts. They never mean for this social small-talk to be actively challenged.

Obama as flawed even if they saw footage of him molesting a boy scout on TV

This would actually increase Obama's appeal to hard-core leftists.

There are a lot of closet conservatives in the Bay Area. They are too afraid to speak up, however, and call themselves libertarians and moderates.



No. Killing terrorists, spying on terrorists, and reforming the culture of regions that produce terrorists, stops terrorists.

That is why this has worked remarkably well for 7 years.



One painful thing about the Bay Area is that you must NEVER discuss politics at work if you are not left-wing.

Even if you say something moderate, the offended leftist will spread greatly exaggerated rumors about your 'right-wing extremism'. Eventually, people with whom you never before discussed politics will start taunting you in large groups out of the blue, convinced that they know what you are, despite never having talked to you about it before.

This goes double if you are not white. The only effective deterrent at this point is the 'nuclear option', which is to ask them 'should colored people be allowed to vote Republican'? No matter what their answer, they lose.

You will see rampant racism towards Bobby Jindal in the coming years. Some of it has already started.


"Even if you say something moderate, the offended leftist will spread greatly exaggerated rumors about your 'right-wing extremism'. Eventually, people with whom you never before discussed politics will start taunting you in large groups out of the blue, convinced that they know what you are, despite never having talked to you about it before."

Yup. Learned that one a while ago. It is a CLM [Career Limiting Move] to reveal your conservative ideals. I can tell you stories about what happened at work when Kerry lost. A manager felt it necessary to even ask me if I was 'alright' because the harassment was so open and amazingly tolerated.

I usually phrase it as "In the Bay Area, 'coming out of the closet' doesn't refer to gays but conservatives."

But I still sometimes set myself up to take the heat. I love it even though I realize I'll have to look outside the company to ever get a promotion or a raise. My favorite tactic is to provide conflicting data to their stereotypes. They fit conservatives into these 'one size fits all' mental constructs that get challenged when they actually meet one in person and are forced to re-evaluate their assumptions.

Some very few of them though then quickly realize that I am their only authentic 'source' for what conservatives actually think and appreciate what I have to say, even if they don't agree with it. I freely educate them w/o any hostility.

"You will see rampant racism towards Bobby Jindal in the coming years. Some of it has already started."

You already see it with the new RNC chairman, Michael Steele. Before that, it got real nasty when he ran for office in Maryland.

Likewise, sexism against Sarah...etc. Go SARAHPAC! (sarahpac.com)



I think the anti-conservative persecution will lessen a bit now, even in the Bay Area, once Obama fails to deliver miracles.

Also, many Asian-Americans apply conservative principles to their life, but still vote Democrat just because the groupthink overwhelms them and they are not politically mature enough to assess actual issues. This is similar to the reasons why 90% of blacks vote Democrat.

But the scary thing is that even one moderate comment can get you persecuted for years, by people who weren't even present when you made the first comment. The people who are actually quiet are the Republicans, and thus don't get noticed.

Lastly, remember to never refer to these people as 'liberals' or 'progressives'. You will never see me use those words on this blog to describe them. They are neither. To use these words is to fall for the traps they have set for pro-US people. Why cede them such an exalted, unearned status? This is what pro-US people have to learn - don't play by the rigged rules that THEY set for you.


Poor GK, still confused about the difference between correlation and causation, I see.



It appears that a weak, non-specific drive-by is the most you can muster, even in your first appearance since the comprehensive checkmate you received 14 months ago.

You clearly are still licking those wounds.


GK, you have a child's understanding of world affairs and basic logic. That's why I have decisively trounced you in every exchange we have had. It must be embarrassing for you, but you do yourself no favors in claiming a victory when you were soundly defeated.


Funny that you would link to a post where I established Jindal as a far-right wingnut with no national appeal, completely destroying your defense of him, after his ridiculous appearance on Tuesday which caused widespread eye-rolling even among your fellow extremists. I realize the abject failure of your idol in his first appearance on the national stage must sting, but that's no reason to continue to embarrass yourself. Don't let ethnic identity prevent you from finding a new extremist clown to get behind.



GK, you have a child's understanding of world affairs and basic logic.

A child's understanding still exceeds a donkey's understanding.

I see you cannot rebut a single thing in the article.

You can never apply even the simplest of logic to any discussion, as shown here for the umpteenth time. Each time, you flee from the debate in great haste, requiring months to muster the courage to try again (always in failure).

I know you feel greatly betrayed that Obama chose to abandon the fifth column, rather than keep promises made to it. Well, it serves you right for making politics your religion.

And Bobby Jindal, just as I predicted, has risen in prominence. You in 2007 predicted that he would go nowhere. As usual, you were spectacularly wrong. You need to learn to accept the right of colored people to make their own choices, rather than smear a colored person simply for not being a leftist.

The good news is, Bobby Jindal is exposing left-wing racism (which was always the dominant sort).

Josh, you have not just jumped the shark, but you have even jumped the sea-cucumber.

tee hee....


I never expected Obama to embrace the Fifth Column that you belong to, who put party before country.

I predicted Jindal would never be President due to his extreme anti-abortion views, which permit no exceptions for the life or health of the pregnant woman. You were never able to demonstrate that position was shared by George W., which is why I made such a fool of you in that thread.

By the way, lying about my position is just as dishonest and disgraceful as your blogwhoring under pseudonyms on more widely-read blogs.

This latest debacle surely didn't help Jindal, who is now a figure of ridicule. Note that he was soundly trounced by Romney in the CPAC straw poll, and barely edged out Palin and Ron Paul. Not a good sign coming the very week that he had a national television appearance. Not good at all. I realize it must be hard for you to abandon your support for Jindal, grounded as it is in racial identity politics, but you should probably quit lying to yourself.


Jumped the sea-cucumber? That's a new one.

Seriously though, I think Josh is in real danger of being accused of 'nuking the fridge'.

"The term is an allusion to a scene early in the 2008 film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. In the scene, the title character is hit by the blast of a nuclear weapon while hiding inside a lead-lined refrigerator in a desperate attempt at survival. The fridge is hurled a great distance through the sky and tumbles hard to the ground, while the remaining structures surrounding it are obliterated. A relatively uninjured title character emerges to witness the mushroom cloud miles away."


Please keep writing!


Jindal - who cares? Seems like a nice fellow. Reasonably smart. In 8 to 12 years he may be a good candidate, maybe not. Let's all wait and see, shall we?

What I find funny is the habit of everyone to "strangle them in their cribs", i.e. attack up and coming politicians for anything and everything before they can possibly rise to any sort of national political prominence. Which pushes us toward electing people like Obama who we know little about, and have limited experience with.

It is painfully obvious that right or wrong, Obama has no idea what he is doing, hence the anger from even those that would otherwise support his goals. Obama is not at core a Marxist. He is at core an arrogant naif. Perhaps those are the same thing. Perhaps not.

Remember Clinton? His first two years on the job were a complete debacle. He then had perhaps 3 years of semi-decent work, followed by the final three year disaster of his impeachment. We survived that.

Of course we weren't starting out in a crises...



Once again, I provided proof that Bobby Jindal's position on abortion is the same as George W Bush's. If you can't read, then you have no business discussing topics that literate people discuss.

I see that Josh once again retreated in great haste when confronted with simple facts and logic.

He will return once again, after months of preparation. It is comical how someone can prepare for months for a debate, only to get destroyed in minutes.

Olives and Arrows


Marxism and naivety aren't the same thing. Committed marxists like Obama are at their core evil and destructive towards human freedom, they should not be underestimated.


Long time lurker here...

nice job on crushing that "statist" (mark levin has the new correct term to describe these fools)

the tea parties are next and the 4th of july after that...it's time to keep the statists from taking everything!

if we don't stop them before we can spend all of our money, we'll be in for a LONG ride...

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment