Something not so wicked this way comes... [Archive]

D_Raay

11-09-2006, 05:42 AM

Ali

11-09-2006, 08:25 AM

Anyone want to share their ideas with the rest of us on what direction you would like to see us going in?

three things:

Ratify Kyoto

Get Bolton out of the UN

Get out of Iraq (and come back wearing a Blue Helmet).

Oh, and a fourth thing (unlikely, but hey) stop funding murderers (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3325285,00.html).

Dang! Close Gitmo and stop torturing terror suspects.

(it's like the Spanish Inquisition all over again).

sam i am

11-09-2006, 12:05 PM

three things:

Ratify Kyoto

Get Bolton out of the UN

Get out of Iraq (and come back wearing a Blue Helmet).

Oh, and a fourth thing (unlikely, but hey) stop funding murderers (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3325285,00.html).

Dang! Close Gitmo and stop torturing terror suspects.

(it's like the Spanish Inquisition all over again).

Kyoto ratification won't happen without India and China also signing on. IF they did, I'd be willing to bet the US would too. Let's start advocating for THEM to sign on.

Bolton won't be out of the UN anytime soon. Unfortunately for your point of view, Ali, Bolton is just what the UN needs : a breath of fresh air in the make-believe BS land of oil-for-food and corruption at the UN.

Iraq is a more likely proposition, but fraught with peril for all sides. It's a 50-50 proposition if we'll have MORE troops there or less by the end of next year.

Gitmo is a done deal. Watched a special on waterboarding the other day and, frankly, it didn't appear nearly as bad as IED's, human bombers, hiding behind women and children, flying planes into buildings, killing civilians via videotaped beheadings, etc., et al. Why not advocate for the end of all those things?

Ok, as for serious analysis of D's query : the Dems will probably raise the minimum wage, allow some of Bush's tax cuts to expire, thus raising the tax rates on the "upper class," and will accomplish precious little else. As soon as the country sees Rangel, Dingell, and Pelosi on a regular basis, ramming useless legislation down the throats as Bush veteos it time and again, the country will be ready for another "change" come '08.

Whether that entails a Dem prez or another sea change back to Republican control remains to be seen.

Overall, I'm optimistic that little will happen, which from a conservative point of view is good : the law of unintended consequences often rears it's ugly head when major changes occur in short periods of time.

QueenAdrock

11-09-2006, 12:18 PM

Overall, I'm optimistic that little will happen, which from a conservative point of view is good : the law of unintended consequences often rears it's ugly head when major changes occur in short periods of time.

So then why did you vote for Bush? Iraq was a major change. Repealing those laws that protected our environment was a major change. I do agree that bad things happen when the nature of things is disrupted, but I feel as though Bush has already done that and it's time to turn back the clock to a time when college was affordable, my air was cleaner to breathe, and my friends were safe at home and not being shot at overseas.

BUT! Things I want to see changed, or fixed:

*Health care. This should be a top priority. Canada complains about having to pay $200 every 3 months for a family of four, while I pay $140 per month for just myself and I still have a $1,000 deductible. Our health care system needs to be more affordable to the public.

*No Child Left Behind. Though education is extremely important, this act does not help children in the long run. It punishes schools for not living up to standards and revokes funding.

*Environment. We need to do something about pollution and our drinking water. Maybe stricter emissions standards, because right now pollution can get pretty terrible in the suburbs of DC.

*Education. I want an affordable place to go to school. It's ridiculous that I can go to an accredited university 2,000 miles away in Canada for a year for the same price that it would cost me to go to a university of the same standing for one semester here in my own state.

Schmeltz

11-09-2006, 05:12 PM

the law of unintended consequences often rears it's ugly head when major changes occur in short periods of time.

Too bad none of the conservatives in the government thought of that before they invaded Iraq, huh?

D_Raay

11-10-2006, 12:13 AM

Well, personally I think we should really start examining some of the toxins out there in our food(which is often overlooked),in our air, and work toward some regulation/oversight.

Examining what is in our food supply and the environment has been an irritating obsession of mine for quite some time now. I will not bore you with my findings, as that could go on for several pages, however I will imply to you that it is a much more of an area of concern than we are lead to believe.

Q brought up an interesting point on another thread of the actual culpability of cigarette companies, food suppliers, meat processors, and the like.

Am I barking up the wrong tree and hoping for too much?

yeahwho

11-10-2006, 11:05 AM

So... where do we go from here?

I have been wondering this since they first called the house for the Democrats.

Are we to believe they will be the saviours of the country? Have we sunken that far into the belief that "anything is better than this" that we will be willing to put up with all the transgressions of our tenured history that will continue on regardless of the outcome of this one election?

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade. On the contrary, I envision this to be a step in the right direction, and I hope I am not too far off.

Very drastic changes need to be made to truly reach the goal of an advanced society. A society free from persecution. Free to enjoy and to get the most of in our short existence. We have all earned that right; we have all sacrificed for that right; we have all been imbued with that right by the men who started this country.

These folks have used the phrase "the American people have spoken" alot,and it should mean something.

I am encouraged by this election, but not so much so that I would neglect to think about who was hurt by it, and what can be done to bring us all together.

Anyone want to share their ideas with the rest of us on what direction you would like to see us going in?

Now that the election is behind us, and the Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress, there's no reason not to admit it: the Right was right about us all along. Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:

1. Carter added to Mount Rushmore
2. Drug-filled condoms in schools
3. Introduce the new Destruction of Marriage Act
4. Border fence replaced with free shuttle buses
5. Osama Bin Laden to be Secretary of State
6. Withdraw from Iraq, apologize, reinstate Hussein
7. English language banned from all Federal buildings
8. Math classes replaced by encounter groups
9. All taxes to be tripled
9. Mandatory homosexuality
10. All fortunes over $250,000 to be confiscated
11. On-demand welfare
12. Tofurkey to be named official Thanksgiving dish
13. Freeways to be removed, replaced with light rail systems
14. Pledge of Allegiance in schools replaced with morning flag-burning
15. Stem cells allowed to be harvested from any child under the age of 8
16. Comatose people to be ground up and fed to poor
17. Quarterly mandatory abortion lottery
18. God to be mocked roundly
19. Dissolve Executive Branch: reassign responsibilities to UN
20. Jane Fonda to be appointed Secretary of Appeasement
21. Outlaw all firearms: previous owners assigned to anger management therapy
22. Texas returned to Mexico
23. Ban Christmas: replace with Celebrate our Monkey Ancestors Day
24. All taxes to be tripled
25. Modify USA's motto to "Land of the French and the home of the brave"

Ali

11-10-2006, 11:36 AM

Kyoto ratification won't happen without India and China also signing on. IF they did, I'd be willing to bet the US would too. Let's start advocating for THEM to sign on.I'll see you and raise the possibility that they are waiting for the US to sign first.

And why should they sign now? The West has been pumping carbon into the atmosphere for generations, whereas India and China have only just begun. Surely we have a Head Start on them and should stop before they do? Lead by example... or is the US economy pretty much reliant on cheap goods made in countries unencumbered by environmental regulations?

Bolton won't be out of the UN anytime soon. Unfortunately for your point of view, Ali, Bolton is just what the UN needs : a breath of fresh air in the make-believe BS land of oil-for-food and corruption at the UN.I hear he's going to be replaced (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-bolton10nov10,1,4787928.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=1&cset=true). He was sent there to throw a spanner in the works every time the UN tried to do anything, nothing to do with corruption.

Iraq is a more likely proposition, but fraught with peril for all sides. It's a 50-50 proposition if we'll have MORE troops there or less by the end of next year.As long as 'we' is the UN, not the US, suits me fine.

Gitmo is a done deal. Watched a special on waterboarding the other day and, frankly, it didn't appear nearly as bad as IED's, human bombers, hiding behind women and children, flying planes into buildings, killing civilians via videotaped beheadings, etc., et al. Why not advocate for the end of all those things?So you are with Dick on this one? I think you and he will find that being strapped to a piece of wood with your feet in the air, blindfolded and having water poured over your face so that you think you are drowning is rather unpleasant and that a lot of people have been subjected to this sort of treatment for years without a scrap of evidence to prove that they were responsible for flying planes into buildings, etc.

sam i am

11-10-2006, 01:17 PM

Now that the election is behind us, and the Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress, there's no reason not to admit it: the Right was right about us all along. Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:

9. All taxes to be tripled

24. All taxes to be tripled

You listed that one twice. Not too hard to see it coming to fruition, given the opportunity...at least on the "top" income earners. Remember before Reagan, the top tax rate was 70%, it's now 28%.....that would nearly triple it given long enough Democratic control of Congress.

Not that any on the Left would mind a return of stagflation, lower investment by domestic entities in the US economy, unemployment, and gas lines again:rolleyes:

sam i am

11-10-2006, 01:22 PM

I'll see you and raise the possibility that they are waiting for the US to sign first.

And why should they sign now? The West has been pumping carbon into the atmosphere for generations, whereas India and China have only just begun. Surely we have a Head Start on them and should stop before they do? Lead by example... or is the US economy pretty much reliant on cheap goods made in countries unencumbered by environmental regulations?

They should sign now because they are the leading producers of all FUTURE emissions. Without their participation, the myth of global warming due to human behavior will be exposed. You'd hate to see that happen.

I hear he's going to be replaced (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-bolton10nov10,1,4787928.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=1&cset=true). He was sent there to throw a spanner in the works every time the UN tried to do anything, nothing to do with corruption.

His nomination was sent up the other day, I heard, to be renewed in January, when it expires from the recess appointment that Bush made. I've not heard as many Democrats railing against him (yet), but that doesn't mean we won't see a spectacle come January.

As long as 'we' is the UN, not the US, suits me fine.

No....the we was referring to the US. The UN doesn't have the manpower or the funding available to place a large "peacekeeping" force in Iraq and you know it.

So you are with Dick on this one? I think you and he will find that being strapped to a piece of wood with your feet in the air, blindfolded and having water poured over your face so that you think you are drowning is rather unpleasant and that a lot of people have been subjected to this sort of treatment for years without a scrap of evidence to prove that they were responsible for flying planes into buildings, etc.

Yes, I'm with Cheney on that one...along with the Congress that just passed a bill to allow it as well.

Like I said, I saw a demonstration on TV and it was not nearly as bad as what's been reported in the print media (including online).

Again, against the possibility (probability?) of another major terrorist attack, waterboarding, belly slapping, etc., et al is not NEARLY the same.

STANKY808

11-10-2006, 02:20 PM

Like I said, I saw a demonstration on TV and it was not nearly as bad as what's been reported in the print media (including online).

You wouldn't be referring to the one shown on Fox are you? The one where the reporter knew they would stop when he said so? That's very different from the technique used on actual captives. The idea is to make them feel like they are gonna die. This reporter knew he was never in actual danger and it wasn't performed after untold hours of other types of "softening".

Give me a freakin break.

sam i am

11-10-2006, 07:27 PM

You wouldn't be referring to the one shown on Fox are you? The one where the reporter knew they would stop when he said so? That's very different from the technique used on actual captives. The idea is to make them feel like they are gonna die. This reporter knew he was never in actual danger and it wasn't performed after untold hours of other types of "softening".

Give me a freakin break.

I've seen the one on Fox and another one that was shown on PBS recently (Frontline maybe?).

Anyhow, I was just giving my opinion....and even if you don't know if it will EVER stop, it's still, in the greater scheme of things, far less "torturous" than the methods employed by the terrorists : suicide/homicide bombings, hiding behind women and children, videotaped and broadcast live beheadings, etc., et al.

Give ME a freakin break.

Schmeltz

11-10-2006, 07:34 PM

Yeah, stanky. See, that's why it's OK to beat your girlfriend - at least it's not as bad as killing her.

yeahwho

11-10-2006, 08:20 PM

You listed that one twice. Not too hard to see it coming to fruition, given the opportunity...at least on the "top" income earners. Remember before Reagan, the top tax rate was 70%, it's now 28%.....that would nearly triple it given long enough Democratic control of Congress.

Not that any on the Left would mind a return of stagflation, lower investment by domestic entities in the US economy, unemployment, and gas lines again:rolleyes:

Stagflation? What the hell was the past six years, some sort of glorious rebound from the depressing Clinton years? This nation is in huge financial debt, a serious international war and awarding the the top cash earners and corporations has been the status quo (http://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm). This administration has done exactly jack shit that has to do with the lower 80 or 90% of the population over the last six years. Why the fuck would anyone worry about negative impact on the folks who enjoyed record profits the past six? Unless they think a two class society is what America should be all about,

I do fully intend to badger my newly Democratic Congressman to instigate hearings. And pronto. There has been some seriously ugly and illegal shit going on for the last several years.

In the 1990's, Congress investigated Bill Clinton's alleged abuse of his Christmas card list for political purposes for 140 hours. So they can very well spend some goddamn time looking into the Iraq situation and how we got there. They can spend some time looking into Katrina. They can spend some time looking into 9/11. They can even try swearing in witnesses under oath this time. They can also start asking what the fuck's been going on with oil and gas prices, and why they all jumped by thirty cents as it became plain the Democrats were going to take the House?

DroppinScience

11-11-2006, 12:29 AM

In the 1990's, Congress investigated Bill Clinton's alleged abuse of his Christmas card list for political purposes for 140 hours. So they can very well spend some goddamn time looking into the Iraq situation and how we got there. They can spend some time looking into Katrina. They can spend some time looking into 9/11. They can even try swearing in witnesses under oath this time. They can also start asking what the fuck's been going on with oil and gas prices, and why they all jumped by thirty cents as it became plain the Democrats were going to take the House?

Excellent points. We need accountability!

D_Raay

11-11-2006, 02:41 AM

Stagflation? What the hell was the past six years, some sort of glorious rebound from the depressing Clinton years? This nation is in huge financial debt, a serious international war and awarding the the top cash earners and corporations has been the status quo (http://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm). This administration has done exactly jack shit that has to do with the lower 80 or 90% of the population over the last six years. Why the fuck would anyone worry about negative impact on the folks who enjoyed record profits the past six? Unless they think a two class society is what America should be all about,

I do fully intend to badger my newly Democratic Congressman to instigate hearings. And pronto. There has been some seriously ugly and illegal shit going on for the last several years.

In the 1990's, Congress investigated Bill Clinton's alleged abuse of his Christmas card list for political purposes for 140 hours. So they can very well spend some goddamn time looking into the Iraq situation and how we got there. They can spend some time looking into Katrina. They can spend some time looking into 9/11. They can even try swearing in witnesses under oath this time. They can also start asking what the fuck's been going on with oil and gas prices, and why they all jumped by thirty cents as it became plain the Democrats were going to take the House?
Hehe... (y)

Ali

11-13-2006, 07:59 AM

No....the we was referring to the US. The UN doesn't have the manpower or the funding available to place a large "peacekeeping" force in Iraq and you know it.Well, perhaps with the full and active participation of ALL nation states (yes, even the US) then perhaps the UN would have more manpower and funding.

The Notorious LOL

11-13-2006, 08:52 AM

Not that any on the Left would mind a return of stagflation, lower investment by domestic entities in the US economy, unemployment, and gas lines again:rolleyes:

I was gonna say not Clinton...but then I remembered that his economic growth was because of Reaganomics :rolleyes:

Ali

11-13-2006, 11:05 AM

I was gonna say not Clinton...but then I remembered that his economic growth was because of Reaganomics :rolleyes:and Bush's economic growth is because of...?

Ali

11-13-2006, 11:17 AM

They should sign now because they are the leading producers of all FUTURE emissions. The US is still the world's biggest polluter (especially if you count US companies operating offshore and the manufacture of products in India and China, destined for the US).
You have to take the high ground and lead by example in this, rather than shout about China and India not signing. If you don't sign, then they can always say,"but look, the US won't sign, so why should we".

Whatever, your Republican opinion is academic now. All you and your fellows can do is watch and fume (like we have had to do for the past 6 years!).

Without their participation, the myth of global warming (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/) due to human behavior will be exposed. You'd hate to see that happen. Sure would. I know that Global Warming is a natural phenomenon, but I am all for the reduction in the fantastic amounts of shit being pumped into the air we breathe and the water we drink, not to mention the endless conflict over oil. If it's scaremongering and the result is less pollution, then that's fine with me.

The Notorious LOL

11-13-2006, 12:35 PM

and Bush's economic growth is because of...?

because of Bush, of course! That mysterious economic delay conservatives mention when talking about Clintons economic growth becomes non-existant when someone they support is in office.

what economic growth?

sam i am

11-13-2006, 01:13 PM

Well, perhaps with the full and active participation of ALL nation states (yes, even the US) then perhaps the UN would have more manpower and funding.

The US already funds what % of the UN's budget?

The UN is a strawman in the literal sense of the word : all style and no substance.....unless, of course, you're looking at their stellar record with the oil-for-food program : sure...put that group in charge again:rolleyes:

STANKY808

11-13-2006, 01:28 PM

I've seen the one on Fox and another one that was shown on PBS recently (Frontline maybe?).

Anyhow, I was just giving my opinion....and even if you don't know if it will EVER stop, it's still, in the greater scheme of things, far less "torturous" than the methods employed by the terrorists : suicide/homicide bombings, hiding behind women and children, videotaped and broadcast live beheadings, etc., et al.

Give ME a freakin break.

That's just fucked up. I love the "we are not as bad as them" argument. And your opinion was based on a demonstration not actual torture. I mean if these techniques didn't scare the shit out of people and make them think they are going drown, why would anyone cave and start talking?

Schmeltz

11-13-2006, 05:42 PM

Qdrop

11-14-2006, 09:43 AM

Sure would. I know that Global Warming is a natural phenomenon, but I am all for the reduction in the fantastic amounts of shit being pumped into the air we breathe and the water we drink, not to mention the endless conflict over oil. If it's scaremongering and the result is less pollution, then that's fine with me.

oh sure, you don't give ME the common courtesy in this debate to say this though...
sure...

btw, from YOUR EPA link:

"What's Not Certain?

Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

* Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
* Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
* Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
* Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change."

sam i am

11-14-2006, 11:54 AM

It is hilarious that sam has no faith in the UN because of the relatively minor oil-for-food affair, while his faith in the Republican party remains unshaken in spite of the unmitigated disaster they have been for his country and for others.

Who says my faith in the Republican party hasn't been shaken?:eek:

I'm actually glad we got rid of a bunch of wanna-be poseur Republicans who earmarked us to death.

The point about the UN is still valid, however : no ability to truly enforce what the "world" wants enforced. How many freaking resolutions does it take before action occurs? Saddam knew how to play the game until he pissed off the US. North Korea's known how to play the game, as has Iran.

Either countries like the US and Britain put some might behind the threats or nothing changes and we end up with nukes in the hands of extremists who are actually willing to employ them. Say what you will about the US and Britain, but neither has employed their nuclear weapons since the end of WWII on people (I know, I know...there's been testing, but even y'all would have to admit that's NOT the same as smuggling one into a country and blowing up a city or aiming and firing a missile at Tel Aviv, which, BTW, is supposedly a part of "Palestine.":rolleyes: )

sam i am

11-14-2006, 11:56 AM

That's just fucked up. I love the "we are not as bad as them" argument. And your opinion was based on a demonstration not actual torture. I mean if these techniques didn't scare the shit out of people and make them think they are going drown, why would anyone cave and start talking?

SO.....

What YOU are arguing is that we should waste our time and resources (and argumentation) on ending waterboarding while it's perfectly OK to behead publicly, force women into subservient roles, kill innocent civilians with impunity, plant IED's that kill and main not only "enemy" soldiers but also women and children, hide behind women and children to avoid getting killed oneself, etc. et al?

Are you sure that's the side that shouldn't be spent the time on?

sam i am

11-14-2006, 11:57 AM

Whatever, your Republican opinion is academic now. All you and your fellows can do is watch and fume (like we have had to do for the past 6 years!).

As long as Bush is Prez, we aren't "academic." Vetoes, my friend....vetoes. Learn it.....live it.....love it.

Beware the hubris of your own victory...'08 isn't far away.

STANKY808

11-14-2006, 03:16 PM

SO.....

What YOU are arguing is that we should waste our time and resources (and argumentation) on ending waterboarding while it's perfectly OK to behead publicly, force women into subservient roles, kill innocent civilians with impunity, plant IED's that kill and main not only "enemy" soldiers but also women and children, hide behind women and children to avoid getting killed oneself, etc. et al?

Are you sure that's the side that shouldn't be spent the time on?

Fuck that - I have never said anything of the sort and you know it. You are either a nation of laws or you are not. You can't have a sliding scale based on the current enemy.

And anyhow - my initial post was with regard to you saying waterboarding wasn't that bad as you had seen a reporter undergo that kind of treatment. You were stating it wasn't that bad and then started to compare it to what the enemy does.

So just to be crystal clear - what I was arguing about was your contention that waterboarding wasn't really that bad and my point of view was that whatever that reporter goes through does not in any way reflect what an actual "enemy combatant" might experience.

Oh, and you should drop the "homicide bombing" crap, I don't think FOX or Limbaugh even use that anymore. I mean - most bombs I'm aware of are intended to kill people so it's a little redundant.

QueenAdrock

11-14-2006, 04:36 PM

Beware the hubris of your own victory...'08 isn't far away.

Just my words in '04. It's nice that they screwed things up so badly because I've been in a much better mood since last Tuesday.

I think we'll get a Democratic Pres in '08 too.

It's sad that I may be spending these first two non-oppressive years in Canada, because I've been waiting for this for six years.

Ali

11-15-2006, 07:19 AM

The US already funds what % of the UN's budget?

The UN is a strawman in the literal sense of the word : all style and no substance.....unless, of course, you're looking at their stellar record with the oil-for-food program : sure...put that group in charge again:rolleyes:Funds the budget? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._arre ars_issue)

The UN is YOUR straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), sam. You are like a stuck record, trotting out the oil for food scandal. It was the activities of corrupt individuals within the UN, not the organisation itself which was to blame.

sam i am

11-15-2006, 05:05 PM

Funds the budget? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._arre ars_issue)

The UN is YOUR straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), sam. You are like a stuck record, trotting out the oil for food scandal. It was the activities of corrupt individuals within the UN, not the organisation itself which was to blame.

Gotta love wikipedia....they're ALWAYS so accurate:rolleyes:

Who's making up the budget "deficit" that the US is supposedly not paying?

As for your wondrous "straw man" link, Ali, I made it pretty clear when I defined strawman, rather than your facetious attempt to sidestep the point I clearly made. Nice try, as usual.

sam i am

11-15-2006, 05:11 PM

Fuck that - I have never said anything of the sort and you know it. You are either a nation of laws or you are not. You can't have a sliding scale based on the current enemy.

So....if the Allies had the opportunity to kill Hitler during WWII, but it wasn't "legal" to do so, or if we'd had to waterboard someone to find out Hitler's location so we could take him out, it wouldn't, in your line of reasoning, have been "legal" or "ethical" to do so?

And anyhow - my initial post was with regard to you saying waterboarding wasn't that bad as you had seen a reporter undergo that kind of treatment. You were stating it wasn't that bad and then started to compare it to what the enemy does.

As any realist would do. When you are battling a depraved enemy, sticking to the "high ground" while losing the war won't help you to eventually turn the "right" way again. Look at Lincoln's habeaus corpus decision or Truman's decision to employ the A-bomb : both are prime examples of "non-legal" actions that helped to save the Union, in the first case, and ended a war that could have cost aditional millions of casualties in the second. Don't be blinded by your high-mindedness when it comes to reality.

So just to be crystal clear - what I was arguing about was your contention that waterboarding wasn't really that bad and my point of view was that whatever that reporter goes through does not in any way reflect what an actual "enemy combatant" might experience.

Do you know any enemy combatants that might tell us about their experiences with waterboarding? I'm sure the US would LOVE to "talk" to them;)

Oh, and you should drop the "homicide bombing" crap, I don't think FOX or Limbaugh even use that anymore. I mean - most bombs I'm aware of are intended to kill people so it's a little redundant.

I'm glad I provoked the response I was looking for from you.

STANKY808

11-15-2006, 05:38 PM

sam i am

11-15-2006, 05:51 PM

Way to be a FOX shill. I'm sure you are quite proud of yourself.

And as for your other rantings - I think what you get as far as information derived from torture has been shown to be pretty unreliable anyway.

What if someone could have killed Hitler? Any other hypotheticals you want to use to justify torture? Cause that one is weak.

I actually don't watch Fox, so nice try.

In what way is my information regarding torture unreliable? Just because I've viewed a few demonstrations and compared that with what the enemy does? Hmmm.....seems like the one who is ranting is you.

Waterboarding is not torture and, BTW, is not illegal under US law. Congress OK'd it recently and it's being employed. No matter what position you take, it's not even close to on par with what our enemies do.

Finally, yes....one must adapt on'es strategies based on the enemy : if you don't, you often lose.

Guess you don't have much to say in the way of constructive defense of your positions you've (foolishly) taken.

STANKY808

11-15-2006, 06:02 PM

I actually don't watch Fox, so nice try.

In what way is my information regarding torture unreliable? Just because I've viewed a few demonstrations and compared that with what the enemy does? Hmmm.....seems like the one who is ranting is you.

Waterboarding is not torture and, BTW, is not illegal under US law. Congress OK'd it recently and it's being employed. No matter what position you take, it's not even close to on par with what our enemies do.

Finally, yes....one must adapt on'es strategies based on the enemy : if you don't, you often lose.

Guess you don't have much to say in the way of constructive defense of your positions you've (foolishly) taken.

No, see I know the difference between a reporter getting waterboarded and an actual prisoner which was what I stated in the first place and you brought in all the rational of why to do it.

So when you first stated you saw the one on FOX, you weren't watching FOX? You can see my confusion stems from what you stated.

Now take a deep breath and read slowly - I was referring to information gleaned from torture - not that you personally were obtaining information through torture.

And as far as what congress says is torture - what about other definitions? I guess they don't count.

So, and I say this with the greatest respect possible - fuck off and stop lying - you said you saw it on FOX. For you to now say you don't watch FOX means you are incapable of keeping your bullshit straight. I'm done.

sam i am

11-15-2006, 06:05 PM

No, see I know the difference between a reporter getting waterboarded and an actual prisoner which was what I stated in the first place and you brought in all the rational of why to do it.

So when you first stated you saw the one on FOX, you weren't watching FOX? You can see my confusion stems from what you stated.

Now take a deep breath and read slowly - I was referring to information gleaned from torture - not that you personally were obtaining information through torture.

And as far as what congress says is torture - what about other definitions? I guess they don't count.

So, and I say this with the greatest respect possible - fuck off and stop lying - you said you saw it on FOX. For you to now say you don't watch FOX means you are incapable of keeping your bullshit straight. I'm done.

The internet, idiot. This was my EXACT quote : "I've seen the one on Fox and another one that was shown on PBS recently (Frontline maybe?)."

Fox's website was linked when I put it in a google search, which they've since pulled, evidently. The other one I referred to above is here : http://www.brainshrub.com/node/526. This one has also been pulled.

Here's another example : javascript:popWin('/popup/extras/waterboarded/video.jsp?vid=http://video.current.tv/video/feeds/extras/rakim/Rakim_live.flv&id=2554940',%20430,%20455);

Now, if you have the stomach for it, compare it to this : http://www.aztlan.net/pearlvideo.htm.

Which one is worse?

So, and I say this with the greatest respect possible - fuck off.

STANKY808

11-15-2006, 06:22 PM

Very original.

Asshole.

D_Raay

11-15-2006, 11:24 PM

Comparing methods of torture? How delightful...

Why don't we just change the US into one giant set for 24, as reality doesn't much matter apparently.

sam i am

11-16-2006, 12:12 PM

Very original.

Asshole.

If originality means showing you up, then I guess I am original.

Thanks for the compliment.

sam i am

11-16-2006, 12:16 PM

Comparing methods of torture? How delightful...

Why don't we just change the US into one giant set for 24, as reality doesn't much matter apparently.

D : all I was doing was comparing and contrasting forms of "torture."

IMO, torture is much more the Pearl video and what the enemy does to us than anything we've come up with against them. If we were dealing with a civilized nation and fighting a formal war, things would be different and the Geneva accords would come into play. As we're dealing with an enemy that is conscieneless and willing to suicide rather than admit defeat, we have no choice but to employ methods that would otherwise be under the rules of war. We are not dealing with a nation or organized state, however, we are dealing with shadowy, merciless, deranged people who are trying to destroy us on a daily basis. When faced with such a challenge, the niceities of "formal" war cannot always be followed or we face certain defeat. That's also why I employed the examples of the A-bomb and habeaus corpus above, BTW.

Ali

11-21-2006, 09:14 AM

shadowy, merciless, deranged people who are trying to destroy us on a daily basis. Are you referring to The Secret Team (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/)? Kinda fits the bill, tho.

sam i am

11-22-2006, 11:45 AM

Are you referring to The Secret Team (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/)? Kinda fits the bill, tho.

Yes. Fear the CIA.

THEY'RE OUT TO GET YOU! (in the safety of your little suburban English home:rolleyes: )

Ali

11-23-2006, 06:19 AM

Yes. Fear the CIA.

THEY'RE OUT TO GET YOU! (in the safety of your little suburban English home:rolleyes: )They may be out to get me, but they have already got you. They've had you for a very long time, according to Mr Prouty.

sam i am

11-26-2006, 09:09 PM

They may be out to get me, but they have already got you. They've had you for a very long time, according to Mr Prouty.

Are you implying I'm either employed by them or "brainwashed?"

Check your own head before ATTEMPTING to get into mine, brother.

Ali

12-01-2006, 08:13 AM

Yes. Fear the CIA.

THEY'RE OUT TO GET YOU! (in the safety of your little suburban English home:rolleyes: )Hmm, I have to travel into London each day and catch the same bus which got blown to bits on July 07 2005.

Thanks to the CIA and the way they got the US and the UK into this pile of shit in the Middle East, my life is in danger.

So, yes, I fear the CIA, big time.

sam i am

12-04-2006, 04:01 PM

Hmm, I have to travel into London each day and catch the same bus which got blown to bits on July 07 2005.

Thanks to the CIA and the way they got the US and the UK into this pile of shit in the Middle East, my life is in danger.

So, yes, I fear the CIA, big time.

But you can at least separate the fact that the CIA did not actually set off the bomb, nor is likely to in the future, right?

The ACTUAL perpetrators were homegrown Englishmen of Middle Eastern descent who had supposedly been integrated into English society, yes?

The CIA is not your bogeyman, my friend....it's those who would destroy you based solely on the fact that you are not the exact kind of Muslim they'd like for you to be.