REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Change you were dumb enough to believe in

POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Thursday, May 28, 2009 17:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5944
PAGE 2 of 3

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:24 AM

WASHNWEAR


Quote:

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Hmm. Well I just watched the vid and rather than jump into the scrum with everyone about minutia (Cheney this, Obama that) I'll just offer a general observation about MSNBC.

This clip is a perfect example of how their network is an insult to journalism. The very way Madow opens her piece speaks volumes.

We begin tonight with a tale of 2 speeches, both from the same man, both from Obama. One speech that could have been billed as a ballad to the constitution, a proclimation of american values, a repuduation of the lawless behavior of the last presidential administration. And another speech: announcing a radical new claim of presidential power that is not afforded by the constitution and that has never been attempted in american history, even by George W Bush and Dick Cheney.

My god. This isn't just slant, this is a 90 degree sheerwall. Is this the kind of stuff MSNBC puts out daily? I never watch so I cannot know. She (or the network I should say, she's a mouthpiece) completely frames the discussion into biased confines with the very opening. I can see how less intelligent viewers would be swayed, it's just propaganda. Blind propaganda taken straight from the playbook of Goebbels.

Propaganda: The dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of people which stands opposite to the concept of impartially. Propaganda in its most basic sense proffers information primarily in order to influence an audience with selective facts to encourage a particular synthesis, or frames a subject pre-emptively, in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.

Beyond the framing of the subject, she and our president Just--Keep--Reminding--Us about "Bush" and "Cheney". I wonder if this will work in 2012 when it will actually matter for them.



Yeah, the paragraph cited is pretty biased, alright...and I say that as one who basically agrees with the paragraph.

As for bad memories, no one lately has kept me more mindful of Bush and Cheney than Cheney himself. I suppose being out of office carries with it no obligation to shut up, but still...



W W R D ?
What would Rorschach do?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:26 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by WASHnwear:
no one lately has kept me more mindful of Bush and Cheney than Cheney himself. I suppose being out of office carries with it no obligation to shut up, but still...




He's just attempting to avoid/deflect a jail sentence is all.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:30 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Cites and quote please. Back up your opinion with fact. Being a lawyer, it should be EASY for you to find the aforesaid "regulations". And if you can't find them....


Its kinda become common knowledge in the last 8 months or so.

Congress passed a bi-partisan law signed by Bill Clinton in 1999.

The goal was to increase home ownership, especially by minorities. http://www.connpost.com/ci_12431504?source=rss

"Lending standards were lowered and rules were implemented to provide loans for consumers who previously had been unable to secure them.
Mortgages, many of them subprime or risky, were being packaged and sold for what later proved to be more than they were worth. In some cases there was fraud and brokers taking advantage of borrowers “who could not have understood” what they were doing, Tyler said." http://www.enterprise-journal.com/articles/2009/05/14/news/02.txt

Basically Clinton, with Congrssional support, rewrote the lending rules to create what he called "loan affirmative action". http://liberal-education.com/content/Anatomy%20of%20a%20crisis.htm

In other words, they told the banks who to lend to and under what conditions. No money down, relaxed credit and income requirments, etc. They took long term profit OUT of the industry forcing the bankers to think short term for any return. The system that resulted was bound to collapse at some point.

Edited to add: I don't really think Clinton is "at fault". He achieved his objective, meaning increased home ownership. This is more of an "unintended consequence". Though some folks where concerned, I doubt anyone, outside the boardrooms, forsaw the magnitude of the problem. There was confidence that people would buy houses they could afford and then pay the money back.

H




"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:50 AM

BYTEMITE


And as to the government, buying a boat and heading for open waters is getting more tempting by the day.

I'm going to call that my "Plan F."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 9:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hero, just to give you an idea of how bogus and twisted your articles are, let me exerpt this from the last site:
Quote:

The CRA bill was later revitalized by Bill Clinton, who forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make bogus loans. This is explained, in part, by Terry Jones, writing for Yahoo!
FANNIE AND FREDDIE DID NOT WRITE LOANS.

I'll repeat that in case you missed it the first time.

FANNIE AND FREDDIE DID NOT WRITE LOANS.

Just in case you missed it, I'll repeat it again.

FANNIE AND FREDDIE DID NOT WRITE LOANS.


also

CLINTON'S SO-CALLED LOAN REQUIREMENTS DID NOT APPLY TO LENDERS.

Should I repeat that? Yeah, just in case.

CLINTON'S SO-CALLED LOAN REQUIREMENTS DID NOT APPLY TO LENDERS.

What does this all boil down to?

THERE WERE NO REGULATIONS TWISTING ANY LENDER'S ARM TO LEND TO THOSE THEY DEEMED UNWORTHY.

And just in case you missed it:

THERE WERE NO REGULATIONS TWISTING ANY LENDER'S ARM TO LEND TO THOSE THEY DEEMED UNWORTHY.


There are a lot of reasons to be fed up with Obama and to criticize Clinton. But you don't have to make shit up in order to do it. Do you have a clue as to what you're talking about? Apparently not....

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:00 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

After entering office in 1993, Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules.
So... he, like, snuck into their offices to do it?
Or is re-writing rules of Fannie & Freddie an official part of a President's job?
And, did he use blue or black pen?


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:47 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
FANNIE AND FREDDIE DID NOT WRITE LOANS.

I had thought you were departing our company. Today you are present among us and typing in caps.

I'm confused.

AND JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

I'm confused.

AND JUST IN CASE SOMEONE ELSE MISSED IT

I'm confused.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I said I would be checking in from time to time and posting a lot less. I leave for a week and check in today, and here Hero is, making shit up, which is pretty typical of the right-wing morons here. Maybe you should learn to read.

'Bye for now.

See ya later.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:18 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
kpo - if Cheney is a liar, then so are Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, George Tenet, and countless others.

So, why are you focusing in on Cheney again?





Heh.... Yep.

Now you're learning Rap!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack




I couldn't help but notice that my question to Kwickie went unanswered. I think that says it all.

Also....
Quote:

Oh, I get it - Rachel Maddow is a "dude" because she's gay. Huh. Didn't realize your homophobia was so deeply entrenched.


How is that "homophobia"? Maddow does look rather 'dudish', am I wrong? I mean, the similarities between Maddow and Olbermann is striking. Also, Maddow and I happen to both dig chicks, so we got that in common. Quite the contrary, there's no fear, what so ever.

There just isn't.



The T.Rex they call JANE!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:22 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Maybe you should learn to read.

OK.
I'll attend to that after I first finish learning how to use a spoon and counting past the fingers I have on my hand.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:22 AM

CHRISISALL


Liar.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:45 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
kpo - if Cheney is a liar, then so are Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, George Tenet, and countless others.

So, why are you focusing in on Cheney again?





They ARE all liars. They're politicians.

We just keep talking about Cheney and Bush because you keep bringing them up.

Lemee put it this way. I think global warming and climate change is a real problem that people need to figure out how to fix (being as how I'm an Environmental Scientist and I see the same trends a lot of other Environmental Scientists are seeing).

But I ALSO know for a FACT that Al Gore had an AGENDA when he came out with his movie. I don't trust Al Gore. Because he is a politician.

See, I don't trust any politician. I have my own opinions on issues. Sometimes, those opinions even agree with the stated position of a particular politicians platform.

But do I believe the politician actually CARES about that issue? No.

Do I believe politicians genuinely care about their constituents, apart from their vote? No.

Do I believe a politician will act in any other way than what is best for their votes, lobbyists, or the overt AND hidden agenda of their respective party? No.

Do I believe that politician is more informed than me because they are an elected public official? No.

Do I believe any politician is immune to corruption? No, in fact I think all of them HAVE to be corrupt to become politicians. They have to know how to play the system.

Do they warrant my respect automatically because they are an elected public official? No, they have to EARN it, and when they do, they can be DAMNED quick to lose it too.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:48 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

AuRaptor wrote:
I couldn't help but notice that my question to Kwickie went unanswered.



What question? The one you quoted above, which you addressed to KPO? Was that one that I was supposed to answer? Should I have *clearly* known that you meant me when you addressed it to someone else?


Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 12:08 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

AuRaptor wrote:
I couldn't help but notice that my question to Kwickie went unanswered.



What question? The one you quoted above, which you addressed to KPO? Was that one that I was supposed to answer? Should I have *clearly* known that you meant me when you addressed it to someone else?


Mike]




kwickie

Cite 1 lie that Cheney's said.

Just one.


Nice dodge. You flatly stated that Cheney lied. I asked - where ? You opted to not answer, nor have you stated why you focus only on Cheney, if all those others " lied " about WMD.



The T.Rex they call JANE!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 12:57 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

AuRaptor wrote:
I couldn't help but notice that my question to Kwickie went unanswered.



What question? The one you quoted above, which you addressed to KPO? Was that one that I was supposed to answer? Should I have *clearly* known that you meant me when you addressed it to someone else?


Mike]




kwickie

Cite 1 lie that Cheney's said.

Just one.


Nice dodge. You flatly stated that Cheney lied. I asked - where ? You opted to not answer, nor have you stated why you focus only on Cheney, if all those others " lied " about WMD.





Asked and answered. Did you miss it, or were you just not able to comprehend it? I say Cheney lied, you say he was "wrong".

If it seems to you that I'm focusing only on Cheney, then part of that may be that he and Rush seem to be the new face of your party, so that tends to command some attention. Also, he's trying to portray himself as "credible" on torture, among other things, when he's been shown to be anything BUT credible - about ANYTHING.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:00 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Cheney is undeniably credible on enhanced interrogation. The law has spoken on that very matter.

You have no case.



The T.Rex they call JANE!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:42 PM

BYTEMITE


If Cheney had been told he was wrong about the WMD thing, but distributed the information anyway, would that be considered lying?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:54 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


Cheney is undeniably credible on enhanced interrogation. The law has spoken on that very matter.



How so? How is he "credible"? Because he ordered the torture? Does he have a torture background that makes him some sort of expert?




Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:28 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


And somehow... they still have 80% of us fighting with each other.

Sad.

WAKE UP IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!

Divided we fall....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 5:03 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:


Cheney is undeniably credible on enhanced interrogation. The law has spoken on that very matter.



How so? How is he "credible"? Because he ordered the enhanced interrogation? Does he have a torture background that makes him some sort of expert?




Mike




First of all, who the hell is Cheney? Was he Commander in Chief ? Hell no, that was Bush. Where are you getting this view that CHENEY, and Cheney alone was in charge of what went on in Gitmo, and not Bush ?

Our own Navy Seals go through water boarding, in survival training, so to call this 'torture' is a complete misnomer and mis characterization of the enhanced interrogation practices.

Eric Holder, Obama's A.G., even says as much.......

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

Holder: Intent is a huge part.

Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?

Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at... ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture.

... Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, continued the “intent” line of questioning in an attempt to make some sense of the attorney general’s tortured logic.

Rep. Louie Gohmert: Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent. If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct?

Attorney General Eric Holder: No, not at all. Intent is a fact question, it’s a fact specific question.

Gohmert: So what kind of intent were you talking about?

Holder: Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act? Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person?

Gohmert: I said that in my question. The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm — there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm — knew that for sure. So, is the intent, are you saying it’s in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured. Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he’s doing harm.

Holder: The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances. That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.




. End of discussion.






The T.Rex they call JANE!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 5:19 PM

BYTEMITE


...Yeah... Either I'm really not following Mr. Holder, or I strongly disagree.

Is he trying to make an "ends justify the means" argument? That's what it sounds like with his "it's dependent on circumstances and intent" (to paraphrase) comment.

And then he also seems to argue that it's not torture if they're only just training them?

And he also doesn't seem to recognize that there's a such thing as psychological torture. Or that making someone panicked and desperate to breathe, experiencing the associated fear of being in the power of an authority figure who seems like they would kill you, isn't psychological torture?

If torture is only in the eyes of the actor, and only based on intent, then I could just break someone's fingers, say I needed the information to save lives, or say it was just an accident and it wasn't torture, and I couldn't be convicted. A court that accepted Holder's argument and established that precedence in law would consider any claims of torture mere hearsay.

Even Holder's definition of terms don't hold up, and his logic certainly doesn't if followed through to it's conclusion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 5:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Well Jack, me, I don't see the point of fightin with the bonehead - cause like every other enabler of tyranny in history, his ass is gonna be first under the treads of the machine he helped put in motion.

I myself am more concerned about makin my ass not be next in line, at this time - yanno ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:37 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


First of all, who the hell is Cheney? Was he Commander in Chief ? Hell no, that was Bush. Where are you getting this view that CHENEY, and Cheney alone was in charge of what went on in Gitmo, and not Bush ?



Hey, I'm just following your lead - YOU are the one who claims that Cheney is a "credible" source on torture, so apparently YOU think he was deeply involved and/or has some deep background in torture.

Quote:


Our own Navy Seals go through water boarding, in survival training, so to call this 'torture' is a complete misnomer and mis characterization of the enhanced interrogation practices.



Please expand on this point a bit. WHY do they go through the SERE training? What is its purpose? For what reasons are they trained in this manner? What is the background of SERE training? How did it come about? What was its purpose?

Also, why then did we mischaracterize it when it was done to Americans by Chinese, North Koreans, Vietnamese, Japanese, and others, and when it was done to others by Pol Pot?


By the way... Since when do you listen to Holder? When did he become your version of all that is right? Your kind have been against him at every turn, but on this point, you find yourself in complete agreement? How convenient for you.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:45 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


kwickie


You're a master at the dodge and weave. YOU brought up the charge that Cheney lied. That was YOU, not me.

And there's no torture, so why do you continue to misrepresent the issue in that manner ? It's because if you dealt in the facts, you'd have to conclude that you literally have no case.

Holder, Obama's own A.G. , concluded that water boarding, where INTENT to not harm or inflict permanent damage on the individual is the goal, is perfectly legal. We do it to our own, so saying it's torture when doing it to others is a complete farce.

I'll not waste time on matters where I've already given you the answers. You're simply playing the part of a child, refusing to face facts, and resorting to asking an endless array of questions, so as to avoid having to THINK for yourself.



The T.Rex they call JANE!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 4:08 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Talk about dodge-n-weave...

So now you're playing chickenshit and refusing to answer.

Typical Republican coward.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 4:16 AM

BYTEMITE


AU: Think about it. If Holder is coming out okay on waterboarding, then that says something even more chilling about Obama's plans besides keeping wiretapping going and some of the other human rights issues the government is stomping all over lately.

Seriously, man, this is bad news. Anyone who supports something you wouldn't like have done to you for some sort of security measure or technicality, you should run the feck away from. They're authoritarian sociopaths.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 4:28 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

where INTENT to not harm or inflict permanent damage on the individual is the goal, is perfectly legal. We do it to our own, so saying it's torture when doing it to others is a complete farce.


Interesting that Navy seals undergo waterboarding as well, I would be interested to know if they are completely denied the option of calling an end to things, like interrrogated suspects.

I found this interesting, journalist Christopher Hitchens submits to waterboarding:



As for this argument that it must not be torture if it doesn't inflict permanent damage (or at least we don't intend it to?) - this seems like too narrow a definition for torture. If you were tied to a wooden cross and crucified Rap, and cut down after many hours just before you die from exhaustion and asphyxiation - would you say you hadn't experienced torture?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:06 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
kpo - if Cheney is a liar, then so are Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, George Tenet, and countless others.

So, why are you focusing in on Cheney again?



The T.Rex they call JANE!




I'm not sure you followed my logic. I'm not blaming him for believing Sadaam had WMD - many people did (or at least strongly suspected), for over a decade. I'm blaming him for exaggerating the evidence, and over-selling the case for war. With his quote above you cannot deny that he was guilty of this - he said 'NO DOUBT'.

Now whether this was pure dishonesty, or arrogant foolishness, or delusion brought on by fearful hysteria – who can say? All we can say for certain is that it must’ve been a combination of these things (I personally lean towards a combination of all 3) – it’s the only way to explain quotes like the one above, in a way that actually adds up.

Now addressing your point that other politicians can also be quoted on Iraq and WMDs – of course they can, a lot of people believed the falsehood, and said so. That doesn’t mean they were responsible for cooking it up and selling it – that kind of credit can only be given to the administration/intelligence services. You’re not making a fair (and fairly obvious) distinction – some politicians beat the drum for war (Cheney was one of the first, and loudest), others merely heard it and marched along to its beat. It's the difference between inventing a lie and selling it, and believing a lie and repeating it. Only one of these makes you a liar.

You should post your list of politicians' quotes and then people can make up their own minds which politicians fall into which category, whether or not Bill & Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi were one of the loudest drumbeats for war.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:25 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Just for the record, AG Holder never said that waterboarding was legal, and certainly never gave the impression that Obama would ever use it. He said under some interpretations in the strictest legal sense it may not be illegal. Holder has a hard time communicating to human beings, but he certainly never meant that torture, like waterbaording, was legal.

I think Obama's doing a good job on national security. For those of you upset at him for keeping some of the Bush policies in place, I suggest you relax and give the man some time. He jumped the gun in January by declaring the closure of Gitmo. He had no plan, and no international cooperation. Gitmo's really the best place for "some" of them, the rest should be tried immediately and put in American prisons, which it seems he wants to do. We have far worse felons in prisons than these jihad clowns. Ever watch Lock-Up on MSNBC? Holy crap!
Gitmo is Club Med compared to our gang-run prisons.

Obama has un-precedented problems now with N. Korea and Iran. Add those to the Bush mess left in Iraq & Afghanistan, and you can see why Obama has to be cautious as he fights the war on terror. Yes, the war on terror, it hasn't gone away simply due to Obama's election, so he must first be a President. His "social & financial" programs are another story, but as far as being our Commander In Chief with the responsibility of keeping Americans safe, I have to applaud him so far.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:44 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Seriously, man, this is bad news. Anyone who supports something you wouldn't like have done to you for some sort of security measure or technicality, you should run the feck away from. They're authoritarian sociopaths.

I concur, Holder is a freakin lunatic, and I am none too pleased with an administration that thinks a maniac like him should serve in the post he does.

I put that right up there with sending Bolton to the UN as amazingly stupid and malicious.

But before I get to hacking them off at the knees, I got a job to finish by feeding the circular firing squad also known as the Republican Party - cause if you don't drive the stake in while they're down and out, they'll be back - and we need to finish THAT job good and proper or we will just be replacing one set of monsters with another a couple years down the road.

That's not to say I can't find the time to throw some sabots in the gears of the current administration, but my function seems right now to be the Dept of And-Then-What-Happens ?

So, think about what's likely to replace them if we *don't* finish off the bastards who spent eight years wrecking our whole nation end to end ?

And so, gotta finish the job at hand first.
*hums the 'execution' soundbite from Postal*

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:25 AM

BYTEMITE


Jongsstraw, I just see it all, everything, all the policies, as an immense and very disquieting power grab. Doesn't matter whether the justification is the economy or national security, the end result is the same: more government control.

Corporations already have a worrisome amount of government protection, so much that I already think that the government and corporations are all really one and the same. But actually seeing the government SEIZING corporations, that just cements it all the more for me, because if they weren't the government's before, they probably are now.

The expansion of powers of the executive office of the United States, whether in the economic or national sector are a run away freight train. These are powers that will not be relinquished once granted (is a power granted if you're giving it to yourself?). We're slowly installing a totalitarian dictatorship.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:51 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Jongsstraw, I just see it all, everything, all the policies, as an immense and very disquieting power grab. Doesn't matter whether the justification is the economy or national security, the end result is the same: more government control.

Corporations already have a worrisome amount of government protection, so much that I already think that the government and corporations are all really one and the same. But actually seeing the government SEIZING corporations, that just cements it all the more for me, because if they weren't the government's before, they probably are now.

The expansion of powers of the executive office of the United States, whether in the economic or national sector are a run away freight train. These are powers that will not be relinquished once granted (is a power granted if you're giving it to yourself?). We're slowly installing a totalitarian dictatorship.


Good thoughtful post there Bytemite. I understand your concerns about Obama, because as most (or some) here know, I'm fairly hard-core to the Right. But I had decided after the election not to continue the endless political posturing that is going on every day now. I didn't like it when Bush was President, and I don't like it now. For all the Obama-bashing that someone like Hannity does every day, what good does any of it do? He goes home to his mansion and limosine, and us common folk are left from the show all worked up with nothing to do about anything. Jeeesh, you watch him, or listen to Rush and you'd think the world was over. Well guess what? It's not. My toes are tappin' and life is still good.

Now, as for corporate takeovers by the Government.....
These "people" deserve it. The crooks and cheats and greedy bastards that committed fraud against the USA with their worthless Fannie-Mae bundles all deserve to be in prison. Since that doesn't seem likely to happen now, I think it's reasonable for the Govt. to have a stake in their recovery especially since it's US tax dollars paying the deadbeat bills. It's not like the whole of capitalism is being overrun into socialism; it's just fixing what needs to be fixed, and the only one with that kind of dough is the Govt. Obama ran on a traditional Dem. platform of big govt. No one should be surprised that healthcare, energy, environment, etc are being expanded and funded according to Obama's tastes. Wall Street seems pretty content these days to accept the Govt takeovers that have already occurred. I just don't see it as a problem. In fact it may be the only solution until America and the world can trust US businesses again.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:13 AM

BYTEMITE


I actually do hope Obama's economic policies work. And his social program policies.

If our economy collapsed, right now, and we went into a period like the great depression, I don't think many Americans have the mindset to survive and recover from that anymore. I think if it was really bad, we could be looking at systemic collapse.

And as much as I desperately want to see a different system and a different form of government, I don't want it to come about through the suffering of others.

That's why I also hope Obama's social programs work too. I support better education, and people being concerned about the environment even if it's just for the sake of their health, and if health care could be reformed so that it actually takes care of the people who need it, while costing less, hey, I'd support that too. I mean, these are all important issues, and while I don't know if any of the related policies will be effective, it's also important that we be looking for solutions.

But I'm also not about to sign my life over to the government, even if in exchange for my rights and privacy, I get perfect health care, education, and a stable economy. That's how a dystopia is born.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:32 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


And there's no torture

if you dealt in the facts

a complete farce.


'Rap, you say there was NO torture, there WERE WMD... you talk about "facts", and make fun of those arguments you all too easily lose to on a regular basis due to your partisan hard-wiring.

You are so a dope, seriously.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:02 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


And there's no torture, so why do you continue to misrepresent the issue in that manner ?



Because the Red Cross, the Geneva Convention, and all manner of international treaty - as well as our own record or prosecutions for those who engage these tactics against us - say that it IS torture. Calling it cute euphamisms in an effort to wash the stain of horror off your conscience is all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that waterboarding IS torture.

The fact that Eric Holder is a fucking idiot doesn't change that fact, either.

You can call it "enhanced interrogation"; you can call it "involuntary swimming" like Hero does; you can call it "a harmless fraternity prank"; it doesn't change the fact that it is torture.

You have no case. You never did, and you never will.

People like you would dismiss the Holocaust as just a few bad German apples applying "an aggressive diet" to the Jews by starving them to death, or using "enhanced workouts" to work them to death, or "aggressive cleaning" to excuse putting them in "the showers". It's torture. Always has been, always will be.

You want me to prove it? Give me a waterboard and Dick Cheney, and within five minutes I'll have him admit that he's being tortured.



Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:11 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You want me to prove it? Give me a waterboard and Dick Cheney, and within five minutes I'll have him admit that he's being tortured.




Mike. That is at once hi-larious and sobering.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:51 AM

WASHNWEAR


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:


Cheney is undeniably credible on enhanced interrogation. The law has spoken on that very matter.



How so? How is he "credible"? Because he ordered the enhanced interrogation? Does he have a torture background that makes him some sort of expert?




Mike




First of all, who the hell is Cheney? Was he Commander in Chief ? Hell no, that was Bush. Where are you getting this view that CHENEY, and Cheney alone was in charge of what went on in Gitmo, and not Bush ?

Our own Navy Seals go through water boarding, in survival training, so to call this 'torture' is a complete misnomer and mis characterization of the enhanced interrogation practices.

Eric Holder, Obama's A.G., even says as much.......

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

Holder: Intent is a huge part.

Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?

Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at... ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture.

... Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, continued the “intent” line of questioning in an attempt to make some sense of the attorney general’s tortured logic.

Rep. Louie Gohmert: Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent. If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct?

Attorney General Eric Holder: No, not at all. Intent is a fact question, it’s a fact specific question.

Gohmert: So what kind of intent were you talking about?

Holder: Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act? Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person?

Gohmert: I said that in my question. The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm — there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm — knew that for sure. So, is the intent, are you saying it’s in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured. Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he’s doing harm.

Holder: The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances. That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.




. End of discussion.



The above reminds me of a saying my grandmother was fond of: {Insert name} wouldn't say sh*t if he had a mouthful of it.

What's the intent? Apparently to have a spade called anything but a spade.



W W S W D ?
What would Slick Willie do?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:58 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I said I would be checking in from time to time and posting a lot less. I leave for a week and check in today, and here Hero is, making shit up, which is pretty typical of the right-wing morons here. Maybe you should learn to read.


I said that in the late 1990s lenders were forced to give loans with relaxed restrictions for income, credit history, ability to pay, and down payment.

You all said "CITATIONS!"

So I said its common knowledge, but ok, here's a couple citations that I can find in thirty seconds worth of Google.

Your response, "LIES!" "WRONG!" and "OH NO HE DIDNT!".

So prove me wrong. Citations please. I showed you a couple of mine. You show me yours.

Heck, I could show you yours. You can trace this problem easily back into the Bush years and the failure of both Bush administration and Congressional oversite to stem a problem that many people were warning about. Fine.

But the problem didn't just appear out of thin air. We didn't wake up last August with a credit problem. When did it start. It started with the lending rule changes in the late 1990s. It continued into the Bush administration, past a President beset with more immediate problems and a Congress whose Democratic members, including a future President, were well compensated by the lending industry to keep this issue quiet.

You claim I'm lying, I had citations, you had none. I win and your just a Bush-hating crazytalker who'd deny the sky was blue to make a Republican look bad. Prove me wrong.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:06 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Does he have a torture background that makes him some sort of expert?


He does now...I'm just sayin...

His credibility was shot, but an interesting thing happened. He made his case.

I've seen this happen in court. Witness should be bad, unsympathetic, etc. But they get up there, they say what happened and yes, they have a bad reputation or a reason to lie...but they make their case and its compelling.

In this case Obama had the high ground and then gave Cheney an opening by NOT releasing the whole story. That allowed Cheney to take the high ground by calling him on the omission and then, once he had our attention, making the case both for the specific use of these methods in these three particular cases AND the larger point of showing Obama weak on security for effectively tying the hands of the CIA. Should there be another attack, the question will be 'could we have stopped it?"

And if a Gitmo person gets released somewhere in the US and kills somebody...its game over for the Democrats. Obama needs to get out of the corner and Cheney's ratings can only go up, which is what and why they are doing just that.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

Also
"Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture"
www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Mancow-Takes-on-Waterboarding-and-Loses.
html


----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:17 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

And if a Gitmo person gets released somewhere in the US and kills somebody...its game over for the Democrats. Obama needs to get out of the corner and Cheney's ratings can only go up, which is what and why they are doing just that.


Felons get out of prison all the time and kill people. Rapists & child molesters the same. Does anyone other than the victim's family typically give a shit that the bleeding hearts on the parole boards let these animals out to kill and rape again? No.
It would be the same with Gitmo guys, except the Democrats would just blame Bush for it. They would say the guy should never have been in this hemisphere to begin with. I've heard others use the same phrase you did... "all over for Dems or Obama if this or that happens." That is delusional thinking in light of the reality we live in under a corrupt Obama-loving press. The media will jab Obama from time to time to give the illusion of fairness and truth, but they will always cover and protect him on the big stuff. Bush & Cheney are just two juicy targets that will NEVER be off the table for Obama and his fans.

AND, getting back to the Waterboarding thing again. It is absolutely torture, and Cheney should shut his mouth already. He is digging a grave for himself and other Republicans by continuing his insistence on the merits of torture. Funny how the bastard never said shit for 8 years about what was going on, and never came out once in public to defend his President and their policies against the daily media onslaught against them. Only now does he muster up the courage to stand tall by his convictions. Sorry, but it's too little, too late. The more he rants about torture, the more he damages Republicans and helps Democrats. If you don't believe me, take another look at the last Presidential election results. Although McIdiot wasn't a true Conservative or even by any measure a Republican, he still got clobberred by a leftist junior Senator with no experience. So something tells me Americans in general like the Obama way, and reject the Cheney way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:11 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You want me to prove it? Give me a waterboard and Dick Cheney, and within five minutes I'll have him admit that he's being tortured.




Mike. That is at once hi-larious and sobering.


The laughing Chrisisall



Thanks, Chris - the hell of it is, if I *DO* get Cheney to admit that it's torture, will he have given an honest answer, or will he have told me what I want to hear because I'm torturing him?

Neither way works out particularly well for him.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:02 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Talk about dodge-n-weave...

So now you're playing chickenshit and refusing to answer.

Typical Republican coward.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



Now you're making up shit just to avoid having to answer. You've sunk to a new low ( hard for me to admit that, being that it's , well....YOU )



The T.Rex they call JANE!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:03 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


And there's no torture

if you dealt in the facts

a complete farce.


'Rap, you say there was NO torture, there WERE WMD... you talk about "facts", and make fun of those arguments you all too easily lose to on a regular basis due to your partisan hard-wiring.

You are so a dope, seriously.




Chris, I'm right, and your continued partisan bickering only reflects poorly on your and those who you support.



The T.Rex they call JANE!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:17 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You want me to prove it? Give me a waterboard and Dick Cheney, and within five minutes I'll have him admit that he's being tortured.




Mike. That is at once hi-larious and sobering.


The laughing Chrisisall



Thanks, Chris - the hell of it is, if I *DO* get Cheney to admit that it's torture, will he have given an honest answer, or will he have told me what I want to hear because I'm torturing him?

Neither way works out particularly well for him.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



According to Eric Holder, if your INTENT is to torture, then it's torture. Our intent was to extract info which they had, but were unwilling to give up. And that's exactly what happened. They gave up the goods.

Lives saved.

Attacks diverted.

Dots connected

Job well done.



The T.Rex they call JANE!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:49 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You want me to prove it? Give me a waterboard and Dick Cheney, and within five minutes I'll have him admit that he's being tortured.




Mike. That is at once hi-larious and sobering.


The laughing Chrisisall



Thanks, Chris - the hell of it is, if I *DO* get Cheney to admit that it's torture, will he have given an honest answer, or will he have told me what I want to hear because I'm torturing him?

Neither way works out particularly well for him.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



According to Eric Holder, if your INTENT is to torture, then it's torture. Our intent was to extract info which they had, but were unwilling to give up. And that's exactly what happened. They gave up the goods.

Lives saved.

Attacks diverted.

Dots connected

Job well done.



The T.Rex they call JANE!





Talk about making shit up!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:58 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

tor⋅ture
  /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Show Spelled [tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
–noun
1.the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.a method of inflicting such pain.
3.Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4.extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5.a cause of severe pain or anguish.

(dictionary.com)

Psychological punishment
A psychological punishment is a type of punishment that relies not or only in secondary order on the actual harm inflicted (such as corporal punishments or fines) but on psychological effects, mainly emotions, such as fear, shame and guilt. This can occasionally cause severe cardiac harm, even death, but those are not strictly intended, and in the case of torture accidental death would even defeat the purpose. Psychological punishments that are particularly cruel or severe may be considered psychological torture.

[.... Passage on the use of shame as psychological torture]

A strictly fear-inducing method is the mock execution, a form of 'virtual' torture. Various threats operate on the same fear-inducing principle. The use of blindfolds and the like also integrate such an element in other punishments.

[.... passage on the use of guilt and the psychological effects of indirect torture]

(reference.com)



Tricking people into thinking they might drown seems to be a form of mock execution.

But maybe I don't know what the definition of IS is.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:00 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


kwickie

Again, you've posted a reply with out saying a damn thing. I've asked you to cite where Cheney lied, you didn't. I gave you proof that settled the matter of whether we 'tortured' or not, you ignored that too. WTF is the point of this board if all you're going to do is act like Whozit and blurt back nonsensical, irrelevant replies that don't come close to addressing ANYTHING being discussed ?




The T.Rex they call JANE!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:05 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

According to Eric Holder, if your INTENT is to torture, then it's torture. Our intent was to extract info...


What other reasons are there to torture other than to extract information?

You're doing that thing again where you justify yourself by comparing yourself favourably to terrorists - when you torture you try not to cause lasting damage, and you'll only torture for information, not for fun. Congratulations, you're better than the terrorists.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:09 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
kwickie

Again, you've posted a reply with out saying a damn thing. I've asked you to cite where Cheney lied, you didn't. I gave you proof that settled the matter of whether we 'tortured' or not, you ignored that too. WTF is the point of this board if all you're going to do is act like Whozit and blurt back nonsensical, irrelevant replies that don't come close to addressing ANYTHING being discussed ?





Gee, I dunno, because not once have you even commented on anything I've said to you in this thread.

I guess I'm going to give up now.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL