Now is the Time to Renew

<i>"Preparation is the key and you need to prepare with your heart."</i>

"And you need to prepare your heart"

I'm considering that a collaboration and keeping it as a quote.

History in the making. Just watched President-elect Obama's arrival by train to Union Station in Washington. Something about a train. Soothes the soul.

Glad you're back, Pat!

This is like a pre-Super Bowl celebration if you already know your team wins.

I am hoping and praying that President Obama will lead this country well and that God will bless him.

Your remark that "what goes around comes around" is interesting. When does going around begin? President Bush has been thoroughly torn apart at every turn by the opposition. Does that mean that President Obama should receive that same treatment from his opposition? Probably so, but I hope that conservatives will be more kind to him and the Democrats than what they have received themselves.

HI Pat; I take your point about giving our new leaders a chance. Granted, the guy has even been sworn in yet. But, if we don't hold their feet to the fire, they start doing what they want instead of what they were elected to do. Mr. Obama has already started back-pedaling on his campaign promises. He has said that it may take up to 4 years to close Guantanamo, and we have to be cautious about getting our people out of Iraq. Please, do not let this guy off the hook. He told this country that he was the best person for the job and would straighten out our problems, and then during his interview last Sunday with George Stephanopolous, he said that he's not going to be able to implement policies on the same timetable as promised(paraphrase). He also said he's not going to make judgements based on his own campaign rhetoric. Anyone with any sense at all knew that during the campaign, but if he knew it, why didn't he just say so. I'll answer my own question; because he knew he had to stretch the truth if not outright lie to get elected. Now, don't get me wrong, I want to see his administration succeed in getting the economy better, ending war, protecting the homeland and improving everyone's quality of life here in the US. But. he just seems like another politician, who thinks it's OK to bullshit the American people in order to get elected and then do what he wants and the heck with us who aren't in the loop. I have never wanted to be wrong more.

I really dislike Ann Coulter et al as well. I'm also glad to see Bush go. Yes, I have started a job and realized it was going to be tougher than I thought. I just think the way our elected officials act and become isolated from reality is what really needs to change, and Mr. Obama ran on that platform. I promise to give him a chance before I make up my mind. Also, I'm willing, as are most people I believe, to "sacrifice" or contribute somehow to helping the common good. However, President elect Obama and Gov. Paterson, among others, are saying we all have to share in the sacrifice, and I say, OK, what are YOU giving up? This inauguration celebration is costing more than any other ever has when we are in economic straits. The reason is given by the media, that this is necessary so everyone will feel like they're a part of it. I'd rather have the new President take his oath and go to work, since it's more daunting than he thought. I'm not seeing much "change" so far. Anyway, I really do wish him and all our leaders well. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Pat,
You were almost right. Liberals jumped on GWB for his education and money from day one. To deny the hate that many of them displayed from day one would be a lie. But it should not be repeated.

Obama deserves a break, but many on the other side will say time for a payback.

I say give Obama a chance, he won.

Find Ann Coulter offensive? Check out this lovely site and compare with Ann's worst rants: www.democraticunderground.com.

I'm with John above. Obama won and gets a chance.

In all fairness Mr. Roach, liberals jumped all over GWB's education because he was a terrible student at a school he would never have gotten into if he didn't have the family legacy.

Conversely, the Republicans this year were attacking Barack Obama because he was apparently too smart....

Burk said,In response to Mr. Olsen, Guatanamo will close and we will do what has to be done to achieve that.

My question is why? and if closed should we bring the blood thirsty killers to America and if we do will you let them enroll in Batavia Government Schools? or maybe letting these killers of Americans move in with you and your family first, just to see how it goes.
Or is it just another liberal democrart flagging his arms and crying over a new victim group for us to deal with.

Chris,
Go back and check your facts. His grades were not too bad and about the same as Al Gore's. By the way, we will never know if Gore got into school because his of his dad also.

Point is, after the election, even if you didn't like the result, they never gave Bush the break they want for Obama.

But then neither side they will play fair, did they?

Moving detainees from Guantanamo into prisons on US soil is not the same as setting them free and allowing them to , as you say, 'enroll in Batavia Government Schools.'

Bringing them here WOULD give them a right to due process of law and, while I'm sure many on this site would disagree with me on this point, I think it is of the utmost importance that we treat these people fairly.

By granting them due process we, as a nation and as a culture, will be setting an example for the rest of the world.

Being respectful is akin to being respectable.

No, Bush's grades weren't that bad, but they weren't quite Presidential either.

For however unfair the early criticism of George Bush's intelligence might <i>seem</i> to some of the Republican commenters, how fair does it look in hindsight? And before anyone brags about how safe from a major attack he kept us, I offer that his presidency started 9 months <b>before </b>9/11. "Ok, except for that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Russ,
Sort of like Jimmy Carter, who was a great student. He had great grades and had a horrible presidency. Horrible economy and the Iran Hostage disgrace.True, after leaving office he did well, but not while in the White House.

You never know when they start out how they will do. On paper, Truman should have never have done well. But he did and is now considered one of the greats.

On paper, Obama should do well, but we’ll wait and see.

Chris said,Bringing them here WOULD give them a right to due process of law and, while I'm sure many on this site would disagree with me on this point, I think it is of the utmost importance that we treat these people fairly.

Thats where you are flawed in your education. ONLY AMERICANS have rights in this country not these killers of Americans and should not be entitled to our court system. You let them step foot on US soil you will never get rid of them. The dems will make sure we give them food stamps, welfare, education, legal fees then the right to vote.

Ok, I don't care if you're a human Stretch Armstrong doll, you can't begin to make the reach to equate Carter's presidency with Bush's. Carter inherited a country that was still staggering after the Vietnam War and the Nixon presidency while Bush took office when we hadn't been involved in major military action for decades and the federal budget was running a surplus. One was a lackluster performance while the other was an enthusiastic piloting of the Titanic into the iceberg like it was a speedboat.

Bob, all questions about the quality of my education aside, I urge you to grab a copy of the United States Constitution and read it carefully. The only rights limited to citizens by the Constitution are the right to vote and the right to run for Congress or President. All other rights are afforded to 'persons', 'people', or 'the accused.'

Russ,
The hate never stops does it? At least we agree Obama should be given the benefit of a doubt and wish him well.

Going back to another topic. Do you finally have the courage to say if you think requiring some city employees to live in the City while others are exempt, is fair?

Do you favor the idea of, or the concept of, or in principle, the merger/consolidation of the Town and City of Batavia? You have avoided answering for almost a week.

What hate?

And John, not to belabor the point, but you ain't the boss of me.

Russ,
"you ain't the boss of me". What, still not willing to give an opinion. Hiding are we?

"We"? You got a mouse in your pocket?

Russ,
That’s the best you can do?

I told said you were easy. You’re still afraid to give an opinion. That’s ok; some people just can’t take a stand, or even say they don’t care. In your case, you can’t do any of the above.

No, not the best I can do. Just all I need to do.

Nice dodge, just doesn't work.

Works for me.

Why don't you give each other a break? I know you both and your both good people. You just don't know each other. Take it from me, you both have much more in common than you think.

Nope.

My heart and efforts and feelings go out to people who accept different ways of belief and faith (or lack thereof), and who entertain that they might not hold the keys to ultimate truth. My respect goes out to people who entertain moments of self-doubt and intellectual curiosity.

Charlie,
That's his way of saying he can't take a stand or give an opinion on very simple things related to the of the City. Since he is a member of the Dem. Party City Committee, I expected more from him. I was wrong.

You generally are, John.

Nice try, but you are still too easy. Why hide?

You generally are, John.

"related to the of the City"

Russ,
Try this one, it might not be too hard.

Should members of City volunteer Boards and Committees be appointed by the City Manager or by Council members?

"Pull my finger".

John,
However much you might embrace yelling at clouds from your porch swing, you don't get to define every argument.

Another dodge from you. I just wanted to have you on record as hiding.

Boo

It does not matter if anyone takes a stand or not, the city just side steps the issue, or changes the rules in their favor!

You need to prove me wrong then but in all means please tell me what section and article of the US Constitution where the enemy is given the same rights as an American.
There could some protection for some under the Constitution
when certain treaties sign by our government could come in play, but I don`t remember any terrorist group signing any treaties in the last 8 yrs. Before 9/11 President Clinton tried to bring criminal charges against our enemies and it did not work, these killers are not worried about our court system. I don`t even blame Clinton for this, he and the rest of country did not know how bad these terrorist wanted to kill Americans at the time.

You need to prove me wrong then but in all means please tell me what section and article of the US Constitution where the enemy is given the same rights as an American.
There could some protection for some under the Constitution
when certain treaties sign by our government could come in play, but I don`t remember any terrorist group signing any treaties in the last 8 yrs. Before 9/11 President Clinton tried to bring criminal charges against our enemies and it did not work, these killers are not worried about our court system. I don`t even blame Clinton for this, he and the rest of country did not know how bad these terrorist wanted to kill Americans at the time.

Don`t now why this post twice? only hit the save tab once,sorry

"Posted by Bob Drewinski <i>
You need to prove me wrong then but in all means please tell me what section and article of the US Constitution where the enemy is given the same rights as an American.
There could some protection for some under the Constitution
when certain treaties sign by our government could come in play, but I don`t remember any terrorist group signing any treaties in the last 8 yrs. Before 9/11 President Clinton tried to bring criminal charges against our enemies and it did not work, these killers are not worried about our court system. I don`t even blame Clinton for this, he and the rest of country did not know how bad these terrorist wanted to kill Americans at the time. "</i>

Bob,
What's your native language?

Bob, you don't blame Clinton, but the truth is, Clinton faced two challenges in taking more aggressive action. One was GOP opposition, which claimed a principled stand against "nation building" and "aggression" at the time, and Monica Lewisnsky, which uncut his popular support to take action.

The second item squarely falls on Clinton's shoulders, but the first item is a clear example of what is wrong with this country -- where partisanship takes priority over principle.

And I say that as somebody who is now a non-interventionist. But clearly, the GOP applied two different standards -- apposing Clinton's neo-con foreign policy and then turning around and supporting many of the same policies and programs under Bush.

If Clinton/Gore had received the same GOP support as Bush, we would have invaded Iraq long before 1993, long before 9/11.

I use this as an example not to support invasion by either Clinton or Bush but to illustrate the hypocrisy of partisanship.

Howard,

Horseshit.

Bush gained office with the support of people who had years earlier authored a letter to Clinton that supported the invasion of Iraq. Clinton ignored that letter.

Bush ignored warnings from his own national security briefings that specifically mentioned that terrorist organizations were working on plans to use commercial airliners to terrorize American cities.

Clinton's neo-con foreign policy? Honest to god, Howard, do you read what you write?

Show or tell me the section of the Constitution and remember 1776 the nation was formed on laws for its citizens at the time against King George. Not to give terrorist freedoms under our laws.

Russ, you're are a Dem. party hack.
Your hate is coming out again. Your guys never, ever, do any wrong and Bush is always evil.

Clinton let OBL go when he had the chance to have him handed over.

As the 9-11 hearing showed, Clinton let his people write rules that would not let the FBI work with the CIA. Did that help or hurt this country (Another question for you to run from)?

But to cut Clinton a break, if he knew what his actions or lack of actions would help cause years later, I would bet he would have made changes. You would have to be a special kink of stupid to think either Clinton or Bush wanted 9-11.

And before you go off on another one of your fits, I am not a Bush supporter, but I am more honest than you.

Howard is right.

No name calling.

Bob, if you're absolutely sure that every prisoner in Guantanamo is the enemy then what's the problem with giving them a fair trial. If you're right then they'll all be found guilty and put to death.

Of course if evidence against them was gained through torture (which I'm almost positive you support) none of it will be admissible in a court of law. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

One other thing: It was the Declaration of Independence that was written in defiance of King George, not the Constitution.

The Constitution, if you were unaware, is the law of the land.

Just show me the area in the Constitution where it says we have to provide fair trials to the terrorist. And stop doing the liberal democrat spin on everything,just answer the first question. If we as Americans need to have some 3 world nation torture a few scumbags to save even 1 liberal democrat American I still would support it. Remember democrats only have power when the middle class have jobs.Someday the well will run dry and you only have yourselves to blame.

No spin Bob, just the law. I could just as easily ask you where the Constitution bars rights from non-citizens.

As for torturing '3rd world scumbags' well, it reminds me of an old joke:

I built bridges but they never called me the Bridgebuilder; I wrote poems but they never called me the Poet; but you screw one pig....

When we torture, we become a nation of torturers. We, as Americans cannot push for Democracy, decency, and human rights around the world while keeping to a policy of torture here at home.

Also:

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Then:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed

And of course:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If we agree to engage in torture we must expect to be tortured.
"As thou sow, so shall thee reap".

Amen to your last, Mr. Deutsch. Mr. Drewinski, it was your so-called "conservative" President George W. Bush who said "The Constitution is just a #@^&!$% piece of paper", which he so obviously believed. I am neither a liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. I am an Independent and like to think of myself as an intelligent, independent thinker as well, as I'm sure you do too. We have standards to which we should hold ourselves to as Americans, regardless of how big a scumbag our enemy is. Gov. Mike Huckabee said in a debate last year about the war in Iraq that honor is more important than winning an election, I agree. What we are doing in Guantanamo is not honorable. Nothing against our men and women in the Armed Forces, they follow orders period. I was one of them for 8 years. What happened to those soldiers in Abu Graihd (sp?) was a travesty, there were people telling them to do what they did who were never unmasked. This country needs leaders who truly believe in American values, like accountability, responsibility and honor. We haven't had that in a long time. Also, I don't want to free those being held in Gitmo and make them citizens and pay for their college. If they're guilty, then they need to pay the price, but we can't be torturing and holding them indefinitely without charges and a trial.

Bob, I understand your point and I also don’t support the idea of giving due process rights to noncitizen terrorists but, I’m also a Democrat. Last time I checked no one ever made the mistake of calling me a liberal. You should rethink your Fox News definition of a Democrat that you’re using and the partisan political babble. Just in case you think I’m alone, the other person on this post who supported your stand is a Democrat as well. Last time I checked, there were lots of conservative Democrats.

People are people and everyone believes different things no matter what box we choose to check when we register to vote. Looking from my side, I see a lot of liberal Republicans too. George W for one, he might have been a social conservative but, his big government policies let us to financial collapse.

As for your last comment about swing votes and who gets power from that. If you look back to history, you might remember a guy named Ronald Reagan. A lot of conservative Democrats or Reagan Democrats voted that guy into office. Maybe your statement should be reversed; “Republicans only have power when the middle class have jobs”. How fitting a statement is that on inauguration day? Your guy blew it big time and people just like me voted for the other guy this time. That should be a lesson to all of these Washington big government Republicans, practice what you preach or take a hike.

Nice try Chris, the key wording you fail and missed was citizens of a State. These terrorist are not part of any Army of any foreign country just plain killers. I hope they rot at gitmo for ever. When did it become torture to make a terrorist wear a lampshade compared to real torture being an American serviceman in Asia prison.

Nobody can credibly call me a liberal.

And I in fact of some good understanding of conservative philosophy, and have in fact spent a good deal of study of conservative philosophy.

Conservatives are particular fond of framing rights in terms of natural rights, meaning they are God given and apply to all people.

The Founders, in fact, based The Bill of Rights on the idea of Natural Rights. The Declaration of Independence is a document dependent on the idea of Natural Rights.

The Constitution, and especially a the Bill of Rigths, that applies to all people. All people share the same rights. If we are unwilling to hold those rights for non-citizens, we have no right to expect those rights for ourselves.

No true conservative can argue otherwise. And in the classic sense, the sense that the Founders founded a liberal government, meaning one dedicated to freedom and individual rights, can seriously argue otherwise.

If you're a conservative, you believe in limited government, the rule of law, and right of all to be free in their persons and possessions, up until the time of convicted in the due process of the law.

Don't believe me, go read the father's of modern conservativism, such as Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk.

Nice play Howard. I like your style.

Your right, Mr. Drewinski, making a terrorist wear a lampshade doesn't compare to the real torture our guys went through in Vietnam and in other wars. All the more reason it was a travesty to ruin those soldiers. All the more reason also, we need to stay out of that business.

Again, sorry Bob, but the key phrase is:

'and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.'

Now here's the million dollar question, what, exactly, would you define as 'liberal' in my position on adhering strictly to the letter of the law as set forth in the Constitution of the United States? Howard's post was right on the mark.

By the way, Bob, you should be ashamed of yourself for using the torture endured by our military personnel in Vietnam to make a political point. I don't know if you're a vet, but I am. Every time someone like you invokes the name of the military and what we've sacrificed I get a little sick to my stomach. If you ARE a vet, I'm truly sorry that your mind has strayed so far from understanding what it REALLY means to fight and die for the United States and her principles.

You know what Chris all dialogs with you is over, what page in the democrat playback is it when you lose a argument invoke being a veteran. I was not making fun of any American POW you loser.

Charlie Mallow, I only have regular TV no cable, I read FOX news.com and CNN.com and about 20 other news sites. CNN & FOX.COM`s always have the same stories or the same front-page picture on them. Maybe you better stop worrying what channel people are watching or more of the taxpayers will be moving out of Batavia for other areas in the country. Like I said earlier if you are 18 years old and graduating from Batavia Government Schools in June get out of NYS now don`t hang here looking for a job or a better life there is no future here for the young.

Bob, your sunny outlook on life is truly inspiring.