The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-10-2005, 10:12 PM
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 26,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds
Terrorist sympathizing putz :wally !
Ben is my favorite American but he probably did not say this great and true quote.
Please see: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Sourced

It was such a wise statement, people just assumed it must have been Ben's.

This does not make the quote any less true or valid. It was one of the founding principles of this country.

Jim
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #52  
Old 11-10-2005, 10:19 PM
Orbifold Orbifold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
There really are terrorists. They really are trying to kill us.
[sarcasm]Wow, REALLY? I never would have guessed![/sarcasm]

Of course, there are terrorists and there people like Murat Kurnaz. Who, according to the preponderance of evidence which was apparently declassified by accident, has no ties to terrorism whatsoever. But of course he's still stuck in Guantanamo Bay because his Combat Status Review Tribunal declared him an enemy combatant based apparently on nothing more than unsubstantiated claims on a single unsupported memo by an unidentified government official.

Oh, and Senator Lindsey Graham and 47 other U.S. Senators just did an end-run around Rasul v. Bush by passing an amendment to the defense appropriations bill, stripping federal courts of the jurisdiction to hear habeus corpus petitions of Guantanamo detainees. If this amendment becomes law Mr. Kurnaz will have no further legal recourses and will be entirely at the mercy of the U.S. government apparatus which has already proven itself remarkably resistant to exculpatory evidence in his favor since 2002.

[sarcasm]But you just keep patting us on the head, Scylla, and telling us to trust the government to look after us without any oversight whatsoever. I'm sure that'll work out juuuust fine. [/sarcasm]
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-10-2005, 10:28 PM
Orbifold Orbifold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Actually, allow me to amend my statement somewhat in the name of accuracy. Mr. Kurnaz is one of the few Guantanamo detainees to have had a day in federal court. It was apparently there that the officers in charge of his tribunal claimed to have classified evidence of his guilt, which later turned out to be minimal to say the least. Now Sen. Graham and other senators have decided that those Guantanamo detainees who haven't seen a courtroom yet should be left entirely at the mercy of the CSRT system which worked so well for Mr. Kurnaz.

But, hey, there's a war on, as Scylla so helpfully points out. Trust the government to take care of you, they'll do a bang-up job.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-10-2005, 10:33 PM
Squink Squink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
I beleive in civil liberties, all of them. I just place them on a graduated scale.
Did you read that article in Business Week? The FBI isn't using these letters to target suspected terrorists, they're casting fucking drift nets on the water, and seeing if any tuna get caught, along with everything else in the sea.
The damned records can kept permanently, and to what end?
I seem to recall a bit of an outcry a few years back when the NICS background check records of gun purchasers were kept for 90 days or so:
Quote:
First, the bill — which passed the House in 2003 — requires that federal records on lawful gun purchasers who are approved by the National Instant Check System be destroyed within 24 hours. As I detailed in an NRO article, when Congress created the NICS in 1993, it added an amendment to require destruction of records on law-abiding gun owners: "No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may...use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms (or) firearm owners..."
Nat Review

That record keeping was a terrible burden on our freedoms. Now they sweep up a million or so who just happen to be in Las Vegas at the wrong time, and create permanent records on them, and it's not a problem? How the hell does that logic work?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-11-2005, 12:18 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 26,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
I beleive we are at war. I don't think it's a game, or hyperbole for political purposes. I think it's real.
Please post a link to the declaration of war, passed in Congress, so I can believe it, too.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-11-2005, 02:04 PM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99
Please post a link to the declaration of war, passed in Congress, so I can believe it, too.
Oh I'm sorry, my bad. I guess it's not actually a "war" until it is officially declared by Congress. How clever of you to point that out. You're very smart.

CHOKEONATURDLEFTWINGCUTESYSEMANTICBITCH!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-11-2005, 02:08 PM
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 26,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
Oh I'm sorry, my bad. I guess it's not actually a "war" until it is officially declared by Congress. How clever of you to point that out. You're very smart.

CHOKEONATURDLEFTWINGCUTESYSEMANTICBITCH!!!!

You were dismissing an entire major issue with one broad stroke that sounds like a line from a responsible worker in a police state.
Once you surrender a liberty it is hard to get them back. Ours have been eroding very rapidly in the last few years.

Does this make sense as a concern?

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-11-2005, 02:18 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrfranchi
Eminent Domain abuses does not fight Terrorism. The eroding of the Fair use rights does not fight Terrorism. Could we stop these at least.

Jim
But 9/11 changed everything! I believe that's the stock answer to all questions now. Besides, anyone who doesn't bend over and spread their cheeks for Big Gubmint is a terror lovin' traitor.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-11-2005, 02:24 PM
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 26,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1
But 9/11 changed everything! I believe that's the stock answer to all questions now. Besides, anyone who doesn't bend over and spread their cheeks for Big Gubmint is a terror lovin' traitor.
My opinion is those that really love the USA are the ones most willing to make trouble to preserve it. I willingly serve in the fight against Communist Dictatorships that once threatened the world. (Just showing my Right Wing Creds).
I now wish to fight against the oppressors from within that endeavor to strip from us our long held and cherished liberties. To Bush, Cheney and their cronies I say give us back our beloved country. We were the good guys, now I am not so sure.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-11-2005, 03:12 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
Oh I'm sorry, my bad. I guess it's not actually a "war" until it is officially declared by Congress. How clever of you to point that out. You're very smart.

CHOKEONATURDLEFTWINGCUTESYSEMANTICBITCH!!!!
You used to be reasonable and funny. What happened to make you a Bush-lickin' wanker, anyway?
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 11-11-2005, 03:15 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
I mean, seriously, Scylla. Are you that much of a coward that one attack by terrorists is enough for you to chuck 200 years of a tradition of growing civil liberty? Are you that afraid that Al Qaeda is going to suddenly decide that the farmland of Pennsylvania is worthy of its attention? If the population of the areas of this nation most in danger of terrorist attack (you know, NYC, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, etc.) are confident enough to vote against the Homeland-Security Republicans consistently, why are you so afraid? Is it worth it to throw our nation's whole reason for being into the Void so we won't ever see that 0.0001% chance of someone crashing a plane into Pottstown? C'mon!
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-11-2005, 03:38 PM
World Eater World Eater is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrfranchi
So as long as we're talking about lost freedoms, how does everyone feel about Connecticut’s & New Jersey’s use of Eminent domain to seize property and sell it to developers rather than public use?

Just asking, I know it frightens the hell out of me.

Jim
This should make you feel a little better.
Quote:
Eminent domain looks less imminent. House passes bill that could prevent private industry from using land seizures.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/04/news...t_domain_bill/
Quote:
Eminent domain, under the House bill, would only allow federal funds for economic development such as building roads and hospital, acquiring abandoned property and revitalizing a blighted area.

The House bill would also allow private property owners the right to sue the appropriate government entity if they were stripped of their land through the use of eminent domain and later found that the land was given to a private developer.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-11-2005, 03:41 PM
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 26,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Eater
This should make you feel a little better.
You know that does make me feel a little better.

Thank you.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-11-2005, 04:27 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay
I mean, seriously, Scylla. Are you that much of a coward that one attack by terrorists is enough for you to chuck 200 years of a tradition of growing civil liberty? Are you that afraid that Al Qaeda is going to suddenly decide that the farmland of Pennsylvania is worthy of its attention? If the population of the areas of this nation most in danger of terrorist attack (you know, NYC, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, etc.) are confident enough to vote against the Homeland-Security Republicans consistently, why are you so afraid? Is it worth it to throw our nation's whole reason for being into the Void so we won't ever see that 0.0001% chance of someone crashing a plane into Pottstown? C'mon!
I think Scylla is just a stupid fascist bastard myself.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-11-2005, 04:29 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Eater
This should make you feel a little better.
It makes me feel a bit better. Maybe SOME of our politicians haven't lost all of their sanity (yet).
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-11-2005, 04:34 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrfranchi
My opinion is those that really love the USA are the ones most willing to make trouble to preserve it. I willingly serve in the fight against Communist Dictatorships that once threatened the world. (Just showing my Right Wing Creds).
I now wish to fight against the oppressors from within that endeavor to strip from us our long held and cherished liberties. To Bush, Cheney and their cronies I say give us back our beloved country. We were the good guys, now I am not so sure.

Jim
Many of us were in the miltiary. I was, even though through dumb luck, I never got shot at. Didn't that oath we took say ummm something about defending the Constitution? When did it become a personal loyalty oath to preserve and defend the men who spit on the Constitution AND America? (Hint: Bush and Cheney). It's a sad day when the loyalty to a party trumps loyalty to country. Before I forget, did I mention that people like Scylla are exactly what is wrong with this country?

I had a long long rebuttal for him specifically, but the gremlins ate it. Maybe later I will try again.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-11-2005, 04:35 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1
I think Scylla is just a stupid fascist bastard myself.
See, I don't. He hasn't been in the past. Yes, he's always been a conservative, and yes, when the war began he was firmly in Bush's pocket, but he was willing to listen to the other side's arguments when made politely before. Lately, though, he's just been insane about it. I miss the old Scylla, of the Nazi Groundhogs and the Blimps.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-11-2005, 06:29 PM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay
I mean, seriously, Scylla. Are you that much of a coward that one attack by terrorists is enough for you to chuck 200 years of a tradition of growing civil liberty? Are you that afraid that Al Qaeda is going to suddenly decide that the farmland of Pennsylvania is worthy of its attention? If the population of the areas of this nation most in danger of terrorist attack (you know, NYC, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, etc.) are confident enough to vote against the Homeland-Security Republicans consistently, why are you so afraid? Is it worth it to throw our nation's whole reason for being into the Void so we won't ever see that 0.0001% chance of someone crashing a plane into Pottstown? C'mon!
I'll tell you my exact honest opinion.

I think the left, as an entity, is a bunch of directionless revisionists who play the game of politics for its own sake. I think they are two-faced, disloyal and they lie constantly. I think the leaders of the left like Kennedy, Kerry, and Dean are truly despicable human beings.

I think the left manufactures scandal and outrage as a product. For five years, the left has been two-faced and traitorous. After two votes to authorize war, repeating the very same things Bush said, and seeing the same intelligence, they now blame him, and pretend that they never supported the war.

After a bipartisan senate intelligence committee has concluded that there was no falsification of intelligence data, they still insist that Bush falsified data to mislead us into war. They play games with the locked door session and such. Dean talks about hating Republicans, Kennedy lies outright. Kerry himself during his campaign debates with Bush said that he would have invaded Iraq, just done it better.

Now he pretends he didn't. It's the same "I voted against it, before I voted for it," tripe.

They pretend it was all about WMDs when in fact it was many issues.

I have no problem with finding mistakes and correcting them, but this is not what is happening in today's environment. These things are not the loyal opposition correcting and pointing out failings. These are simply attacks made for their own sake.

The left has lost sight of the fact that we are at war and are in this together. They are playing a power game, and are more concerned about petty rights violations (Yes I said "petty" rights violations, and they are fucking petty compared to having our cities blown up) than they are about the fact that there is an entire fucking society out there trying to kill us.

THey lie constantly, they manufacture scandals, and they say what they say for political effect, not for their actual job, which is to guide the country I don't trust them or their motivations and I find them to be misguided and morally reprehensible.

As for cowardice. Yes I'm a coward. Al Quaeda is an enemy that frightens me. It is an enemy that I think can bring us down. They get ridiculed because they are poor and desperate and we are such a juggernaut. They are tough motherfuckers and they are highly pragmatic and focussed and willing to sacrifice. We are fat and lazy and smug and eating ourselves from the inside out.

They could take us down. They've been getting better at their brand of warfare for thirty years. Laugh all you want about "nuclear anthrax" and call it paranoid, but technologies progression inevitably leads to devastating damage being cheap and readily available to those willing to use it.

Bush would be a better president if he didn't have half the fucking government working against him. The left should know this. Clinton would have been better if he wasn't being fucked over.

Turnabout may be fair play, but it doesn't make it right.

So, generally I think the left has gone far out there and are a bunch of rabid liars with their heads up their asses with no sense of priority or discretion. Y'know, your basic scum of the earth. I think they pander to minorities, and pretend at civil rights concerns.

Take gay rights. Doma came under Clinton. Kerry was anti-gay marriage. Apparently though there was some theory that he was secretly pro-gay marriage, but had to say he was anti for political reasons.

So, am I to understand that this support of gay marriage is founded on a secret stance underlying a dishonest one?

I don't think the democrats stand for anything, I don't think they mean anything. I think their protests and vapid empty headed concern over real and percieved civil rights and "freedom" issues is false and hypocritical. They only beleieve it so much as they think it can hurt the right and help them win an election.

I simply cannot respect a party without ideals and goals.

So, I think you suck, your arguments suck, your a hypocrite and basically full of shit.

On the other side of the coin, I've renounced my Republicanism. I think Republicans suck. This is not my father's Republican party. It is not my Republican party. Bush is conservative in the one meaning of the word I strongly disaprove of.... socially. Social conservatives are evangelical ignorant hate-mongering scum that deserve to look into the mirror of radical fundamentalist Islam.

Fiscally, I think Bush may end up being disastrous unless we get very very lucky. I think the thinly veiled neocon dream of global supremacy is a true kick in the face to our legitimate role of global leadership... by example.


So, I don't really agree with anybody any more. If you guys weren't such incompetant lying hypocritical opportunist assholes I could be a Democrat. Stop the fucking whining and the faux outrage for opportunism and get your fucking act together and save the fucking country.


I could not give less of a shit about Guantanamo detainees. I could not give less of a shit about secret prisons. I hope we torture people (secretly of course) when the stakes are high enough that we can't afford not to.

I don't want us to be a nice guy. I don't care about your "we're creating more terrorists" meme. It's false, hypocritical and self-serving. I think you're full of shit with it. It tells me you have your head up your ass if you beleive any such thing.

The one thing I like about Bush is that he is unwavering. He has a fucking goal and it's a good goal vis a vis terror. He doesn't do giant 180 degree turns for political effect. He wants to win, and y'all are too stupid to realize that he's not playing populist games.

He would win quicker and cleaner with support.

But silly me. You're not afraid of terrorists. You're not afraid of car bombs and skyscrapers falling and subways being blown up. You're afraid of who wants to see what you checked on your library card. You're afraid Joe Blow in Guantanamo might not be getting a square shake.

I just want to win so that we can be a good and gentle society again.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-11-2005, 06:36 PM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay
See, I don't. He hasn't been in the past. Yes, he's always been a conservative, and yes, when the war began he was firmly in Bush's pocket, but he was willing to listen to the other side's arguments when made politely before. Lately, though, he's just been insane about it. I miss the old Scylla, of the Nazi Groundhogs and the Blimps.

I miss Wring, Spiritus Mundi, DavidB, the old RTFirefly, Gaudere and the rest of the thoughtful and careful left, that used to cohabit this board before the assault of the Wingnuts.

I wish the fact that I think the Iraq war was a good idea and legitimate and needs to be won didn't automatically characterize me as a fascist scumbag in Bush's pocket.

There is not an awful lot of reasonable debate to be had here on these subjects. So, to hell with your "I long for the days when Scylla would listen."

I long for the days when there was something worth listening to.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-11-2005, 06:46 PM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1
Didn't that oath we took say ummm something about defending the Constitution? When did it become a personal loyalty oath to preserve and defend the men who spit on the Constitution AND America? (Hint: Bush and Cheney). It's a sad day when the loyalty to a party trumps loyalty to country. Before I forget, did I mention that people like Scylla are exactly what is wrong with this country?

I think this type of empty hyperbole and rhetoric is what's wrong with the left. It's not that I don't think civil rights and the constitution are important. I simply doubt your integrity and honesty and motivations.

I thing your words self-select you as a dishonest wing-nut not to be treated with respect.

Unfortunately, mine do to. It doesn't help, but I do it.

An intelligent and caring person seeking truth with legitimate concerns, speaks carefully. They do not make big sweeping conclusions and they don't through out blanket indictments.

I'm what's wrong with the country?

What a carefully developed thesis that is. Why don't you just be honest, call me a pig and dispense with the pretense of righteousness.

I know I'm better than you, and I know I have a closer and more realistic grasp of the truth.

You know how I know that?

I know I'm a hypocrite, and I know I'm full of shit 50-99% of the time.

You, on the other side of the coin, appear to beleive your own press releases.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-11-2005, 06:50 PM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrfranchi
You were dismissing an entire major issue with one broad stroke that sounds like a line from a responsible worker in a police state.
Once you surrender a liberty it is hard to get them back. Ours have been eroding very rapidly in the last few years.

Does this make sense as a concern?

Jim
It sure does. I don't see what that has to do with KD's meaningless semantic riposte.

Do you think it's not a war unless it is officially declared as such. Personally, I think a rose by another name would smell as sweet.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-11-2005, 07:21 PM
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 26,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
It sure does. I don't see what that has to do with KD's meaningless semantic riposte.

Do you think it's not a war unless it is officially declared as such. Personally, I think a rose by another name would smell as sweet.
No I will gladly concede that we are at war. We are as much at war as we were in Vietnam and Korea. I was being lazy and actually I was still responding to your earlier post..

If you think about it, aren't you worried that to preserve our safety we are giving up 200 years of freedoms gained? I don’t think you are dumb or unreasonable, and I ask you, how easy will it be to recover these rights?

The FBI can now maintain records on non-criminals. They are fighting to preserve the rights to access the location data of your cell phone calls. They are getting less judicial review as their powers expand.
I think you will acknowledge these powers have been abused before.
Do you see a huge conflict of interest that Cheney’s former company Haliburton continues to get huge no-bid contracts? It is acts like this that makes me suspicious of everything this administration does.

Even if you don’t agree with me, I hope you can at least understand my position.

I served my country with the sure knowledge that we were the good guys. I would have a much harder time doing that today. I would love to stop terrorism, but we have surrendered the high ground with illegal detentions & torture. We have a VP who is trying to retain the right to torture. This flies in the face of everything we stand for and I honestly want Cheney to go before the world court as a war criminal.

I do not think you are a jerk, I just strongly disagree with your position.

Jim Franchi a patriot and not part of the left.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-11-2005, 07:52 PM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrfranchi
No I will gladly concede that we are at war. We are as much at war as we were in Vietnam and Korea. I was being lazy and actually I was still responding to your earlier post..
Okeydoke.

Quote:
If you think about it, aren't you worried that to preserve our safety we are giving up 200 years of freedoms gained? I don’t think you are dumb or unreasonable, and I ask you, how easy will it be to recover these rights?
In those terms no. I think it's a false proposition. I don't think we have lost 200 years worth of freedoms all of a sudden, and I disagree with the thesis of this thread that freedom is on it's "last legs." I mean, if I'm to beleive the OP and subsequent posts, our wonderful Clintonian utopia has suddenly been brought to the brink by Stalin and Lenin errr, Cheney and Dubya and the country is about to fall apart, will being in an Orwellian Gulag or somesuch.

I think it's laughable hyperbole.

I think the concerns are legitimate. I think they way they are being framed is ludicrous and laughable. Sadly, I don't this stuff is new, and I think some of the erosion is legitimate. I don't think we were much of a Democracy during WWII.

Quote:
The FBI can now maintain records on non-criminals.
I don't understand the problem with this. They have always been able to do this, haven't they? Somebody can't be a criminal until they're convicted. You really can't get a conviction until you gather data for an indictment. During the process the person is not yet been found to be a criminal. If there's not enough info for an indictment but they still need the need info because they're might be an indictment later or it might pertain to something else, why should they not have a file? How is this different than what happened before? WHy should I be scared of it?

I also realize that in today's digital age, crucial information will be mined from large databases of data. Credit companies do it to evaluate risk. It works. I see no moral objection.

Maybe I'm missing something.


Quote:
They are fighting to preserve the rights to access the location data of your cell phone calls.
Again, why is this necessarily illegitimate?


Quote:
They are getting less judicial review as their powers expand.
I guess that's an opinion. It might be true. I dunno.

Quote:
I think you will acknowledge these powers have been abused before.
It's pretty much a sure bet that power doesn't exist very long before it's abused.

Quote:
Do you see a huge conflict of interest that Cheney’s former company Haliburton continues to get huge no-bid contracts?
No. Though if you wish to demonstrate impropriety with rigor, I will listen. I will even support an official investigation into the facts provided it is nonpartisan. That Cheney is the former CEO and HAL gets no-bid contracts are not facts that demonstrate a conclusion. HAL got them under brother Bill, too.


Quote:
Even if you don’t agree with me, I hope you can at least understand my position.
Apparently you have a reasoned one. What's not to understand?

Quote:
I served my country with the sure knowledge that we were the good guys. I would have a much harder time doing that today. I would love to stop terrorism, but we have surrendered the high ground with illegal detentions & torture. We have a VP who is trying to retain the right to torture. This flies in the face of everything we stand for and I honestly want Cheney to go before the world court as a war criminal.
I dunno. I kind of always suspected we tortured. I kind of always suspected we had secret detention centers. I think we've been doing this stuff forever and it's nothing new.

It's hard for me to get into a moral outrage about this. I understand it's wrong. But, I do lots of things I know are wrong with full knowledge that the ends don't justify means.

I also question what is torture? When I think about it, there's a pretty big grey area between legitimate hard questioning and torture. I don't know where the line is.

It seems to me that in all conflicts and wars all sides have tortured to some degree or another. When we are at war this is not humanity at its best.

I don't mean to excuse war crimes, atrocities or apologize for them. I simply think that it is a falsehood to charectize the ones in this conflict as being unique in any fashion.

Quote:
I do not think you are a jerk, I just strongly disagree with your position.

Jim Franchi a patriot and not part of the left.
You're allowed to be wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-11-2005, 08:24 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Which side is the biggter bunch of liars? WHich side as shown more contempt for everything America one stood for and once was?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN
Prewar CIA report doubted claim that al Qaeda sought WMD in Iraq
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A January 2003 CIA report raised doubts about a claim that al Qaeda sent operatives to Iraq to acquire chemical and biological weapons -- assertions that were repeated later by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.
CNN on Thursday obtained a CIA document that outlined the history of the claim, which originated in 2002 with a captured al Qaeda operative who recanted two years later.
The CIA report appears to support a recently declassified document that revealed the Defense Intelligence Agency thought in February 2002 that the source, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, was lying to interrogators. … The January 2003 updated version of the report added a key point: "That the detainee was not in a position to know if any training had taken place." … No such stockpiles turned up after the U.S.-led invasion, and the independent commission investigating al Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between the two entities. Al-Libi recanted in January 2004 a number of claims he made while in custody, according to the CIA document.
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Conservative
Forging the Case for War
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
From the beginning, there has been little doubt in the intelligence community that the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame was part of a bigger story. That she was exposed in an attempt to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, is clear, but the drive to demonize Wilson cannot reasonably be attributed only to revenge. Rather, her identification likely grew out of an attempt to cover up the forging of documents alleging that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. … Information developed by Italian investigators indicates that the documents were produced in Italy with the connivance of the Italian intelligence service. It also reveals that the introduction of the documents into the American intelligence stream was facilitated by Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), a parallel intelligence center set up in the Pentagon to develop alternative sources of information in support of war against Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSNBCNews
CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq
Recommends freeing detainees held for weapons knowledge
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall. … On Monday, Duelfer said there is no purpose in keeping many of the detainees who are in custody because of their knowledge on Iraq’s weapons, although he did not provide any details about the current number. … Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn’t able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation limited and later halted their work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria.
No information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes “it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Washington Post
BAGHDAD -- The group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms, according to participants.
The 75th Exploitation Task Force, as the group is formally known, has been described from the start as the principal component of the U.S. plan to discover and display forbidden Iraqi weapons. The group's departure, expected next month, marks a milestone in frustration for a major declared objective of the war. … Army Col. Richard McPhee, who will close down the task force next month, said he took seriously U.S. intelligence warnings on the eve of war that Hussein had given "release authority" to subordinates in command of chemical weapons. "We didn't have all these people in [protective] suits" for nothing, he said. But if Iraq thought of using such weapons, "there had to have been something to use. And we haven't found it. . . . Books will be written on that in the intelligence community for a long time."
After the Blix report, the CIA report, and so on, the Army search also found no WMD, one of the key centerpieces of Bush’s reason for war in Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBSNews
Mid-May saw the leak of the so-called Downing Street Memo written by high-level British national security officials offering textual proof of what those of us who've been paying attention have long suspected: The Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq almost immediately after September 11, and the whole business with WMD, UN inspections, and so forth was just so much kabuki theater designed to lay the groundwork for a policy whose true motives lay elsewhere. This weekend, a second memo, leaked to the Times of London, provided further background. The British government, it seems, had committed itself to joining the United States in this war and was rather gravely concerned that the policy to which it had committed itself violated international law, making it necessary to design an appropriate pretext.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABCNews
Jun. 29, 2005 - President Bush was more frank about the problems we face in Iraq than he has been in the past.
The president talked in more depth than before about the need to make Iraqi forces effective, and why deadlines for U.S. withdrawal could present serious problems. He presented a case for not increasing U.S. troops and he at least seemed to commit the United States to not establishing bases in Iraq or maintaining any lasting presence:
"We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed -- and not a day longer," he said. "Sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave." … At the same time, he tied the reasons for the situation in Iraq to "9/11," and ignored all of his previous rationale for going to war in Iraq, and the U.S. failure in Iraq to plan for stability operations and carry out effective nation-building. He ignored the CIA analysis indicating that the invasion and initial mishandling of the insurgency had made Iraq a magnet for Islamist extremists. … The president did not approach honesty in addressing the military burden on the United States, and key allies like Britain and Australia. He talked about thousands of coalition troops, not the need to maintain a massive U.S. troop presence until Iraq forces are ready. He did not mention that several coalition allies now plan to leave or are considering doing so. He talked about 17 nations contributing to the NATO training mission without noting that these are at best a few thousand individuals, of which hundreds are actually deployed in Iraq. In doing so, he did not warn the American people that there are thousands of Americans killed and wounded still to come, or explain and justify this sacrifice.
He gave an equally meaningless and misleading picture of Iraq's economic situation. … The president implied the U.S. had plans to totally leave Iraq once current plans are complete. It doesn't. Plans don't yet exist to give Iraq all the armor, artillery, airpower, and support it will need until the insurgency is truly defeated.
The president also gave a dangerously over-simplified rationale for not deploying more American troops, although he was honest in stating that foreign forces are resented by Iraqis, not seen as "liberators," and only Iraqi forces can lead to the kind of popular acceptance that can defeat the insurgency. The truth is we don't have large reserves of the kind of trained forces with the combat and area skills that are needed.
Note: Despite this speech and claims that we will not be permanently involved, several “enduring bases” have been built. There is no plan to leave, that is only feel good rhetoric for public consumption. The failure to deploy enough troops is simply a continuation of the original selling point that this war would be won quickly, easily, and cheaply.
[QUOTE=CBSNews]'Back-Door Draft' Raises Questions
Today, more than a year after major combat operations were declared "over," there are still 138,000 U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq, far more than anticipated, with the possibility of more to come.
So how is the Pentagon keeping up with demand?
One way has been to rely heavily on the National Guard and reservists, many of whom are now entering their third year of active duty.
Another has been to shift troops from one hot spot to another, including the Korean Peninsula, where despite ongoing nuclear tensions, U.S. soldiers are being shipped out to fight in Iraq.
And the Pentagon is handing out so-called "stop-loss" orders -- literally stopping the loss of troops by preventing volunteer soldiers from leaving the service, even after they've fulfilled their obligations.
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DailyKOS
How do those politicians who rush to send our soldiers off to war, yet fail to adequately support them, dare look at themselves in the mirror each morning?
Too often, these are the very same hyprocites who strut about and fervently shout that all life is sacred, then demonstrate they don't give a damn what happens to anyone but themselves and their own family members once birth takes place. … Here is Rumsfeld's comment when asked by a soldier about the missing but needed armor:
"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
Rumsfeld went on to blame the problem on physics and then said everything was being done to alleviate the shortage. Of course,this was another set of lies as the manufacturer of such armor later said his company could easily increase output but hadn't been asked to do so.
Any Secretary of Defense worthy of his position and the respect of his troops would have resigned for such improprieties. … Owing to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of veterans receiving compensation for PTSD has increased by almost 80 percent in the last five years. By comparison, the number of veterans receiving compensation for all other types of disabilities increased by only 12 percent. Under the guidelines of the current review, soldiers who cannot prove that a specific incident, known as a "stressor," was sufficient to cause PTSD, their benefits will be revoked. Given the nature of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not surprising that many returning soldiers are suffering from mental illness. … Although the number of soldiers suffering from PTSD is high, Dr. Hoge's study found that a majority of veterans are not seeking treatment. Only 40 percent of returning soldiers acknowledged that they need mental health care, and only 26 percent were actually receiving care. Therefore, the number of veterans approved for PTSD compensation by the VA is relatively small. Yet the VA believes that too many soldiers were approved for PTSD disability compensation and is now seeking to deny soldiers this benefit...."
So slap that 'Support Our Troops' bumpersticker on your SUV and wave your flag. After all, what more could be expected to show your support with George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as your exemplars
?
Remark: We have a military that was sent to war for a lie, is undermanned, underequipped, not allowed to go when their hitch is up, and we are denying them the care they deserve. Happy fucking Veterans Day.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-11-2005, 08:26 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Part 2 -

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBSNews
In a combative Veterans Day speech at an Army depot in Pennsylvania, Mr. Bush said "The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges."
Mr. Bush's remarks came in response to allegations that he twisted pre-war intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq, and amid waning public support for the war, in which at least 2,059 U.S. troops have died. Mr. Bush's own approval rating is also at an all-time low in many polls.
"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said.
He spoke to an audience of veterans and active duty personnel at the Tobyhanna Army Depot from a stage decorated with posters that said "Strategy for Victory."
In a stinging response, CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy said the president misused a day dedicated to honoring veterans for a "campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth."
Kennedy, D-Mass., said Mr. Bush needed to come clean about the manipulation of facts to justify the Iraq war but instead has only "further tarnished the White House."
Other Democrats also criticized the president's speech, including Sen. John Kerry, Mr. Bush's challenger in last year's election. Kerry, D-Mass., accused the president of dishonoring the nation's veterans on Veterans Day by playing "the politics of fear and smear." … Mr. Bush's appearance came as his primary justification for the 2003 invasion — that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction — has come under fresh attack on Capitol Hill. Democrats have seized on the indictment of a now-resigned senior White House aide in the CIA leak case to shine the spotlight on how the president and other officials used intelligence about Iraq in the weeks and months leading up to the war.
A congressional inquiry into the administration's handling of prewar intelligence is pending. … "Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and mislead the American people about why we went to war," Mr. Bush said.
He is still harping on nonexistent WMD. He made noise about antiwar talk affecting military morale. He also, out of the other side of his lying mouth, says he allows criticism - recent history does NOT support that one iota. Never mind we sent a poorly prepared “fight with the army you have” military, gave them no direction on what to do after taking the country (extremely poor planning) and now keep them captive with a back door draft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYTimes
November 11, 2005
Senate Approves Limiting Rights of U.S. Detainees
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 - The Senate voted Thursday to strip captured "enemy combatants" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of the principal legal tool given to them last year by the Supreme Court when it allowed them to challenge their detentions in United States courts.
The vote, 49 to 42, on an amendment to a military budget bill by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, comes at a time of intense debate over the government's treatment of prisoners in American custody worldwide, and just days after the Senate passed a measure by Senator John McCain banning abusive treatment of them.
If approved in its current form by both the Senate and the House, which has not yet considered the measure but where passage is considered likely, the law would nullify a June 2004 Supreme Court opinion that detainees at Guantánamo Bay had a right to challenge their detentions in court. … "It is not fair to our troops fighting in the war on terror to be sued in every court in the land by our enemies based on every possible complaint," Mr. Graham said. "We have done nothing today but return to the basics of the law of armed conflict where we are dealing with enemy combatants, not common criminals." … Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of four Republicans to vote against the measure, said the Senate was unduly rushing into a major legal shift without enough debate. "I believe the habeas corpus provision needs to be maintained," Mr. Specter said. … In its June 28, 2004, decision in Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the Guantánamo base was not outside the jurisdiction of American law as administration lawyers had argued and that the habeas corpus statute allowing prisoners to challenge their detentions was applicable.
This is interesting, to say the least. The entire crux of the Bush-Cheney argument for GITMO, torture, etc, has been that these were not enemy combatants in the POW sense, but criminals and terrorists. It also shows the utter contempt the admin and their party has for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in the words of Sandra Day O’Connor, had already told Bush that war is no blank check for the president. Apparently Bush does not like that answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Associated Press
Cheney Pushes Senate for CIA Exemption
Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terror suspects in U.S. custody, according to participants in a closed-door session.
Cheney told his audience the United States doesn't engage in torture, these participants added, even though he said the administration needed an exemption from any legislation banning "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment in case the president decided one was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack. … The vice president made his appeal at a time Congress is struggling with the torture issue in light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and allegations of mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The United States houses about 500 detainees at the naval base there, many of them captured in Afghanistan.
Additionally, human rights organizations contend the United States turns detainees over to other countries that it knows will use torture to try and extract intelligence information.
Cheney's appeal came two days before a former senior State Department official claimed in an interview with National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" that he had traced paperwork back to Cheney's office that he believes led to U.S. troops abusing prisoners in Iraq.
"It was clear to me there that there was a visible audit trail from the vice president's office through the secretary of defense down to the commanders in the field," Lawrence Wilkerson, a former colonel who was Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff during President Bush's first term, said Thursday.
Wilkerson said the view of Cheney's office was put in "carefully couched" terms but that to a soldier in the field it meant sometimes using interrogation techniques that "were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war." He said he no longer has access to the paperwork…. The White House initially tried to kill the anti-torture provision while it was pending in the Senate, then switched course to lobby for an exemption in cases of "clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States
We don’t torture, even when we get caught red handed. But, we need authorization and permission to do the torturing that we are not doing. Torturing stops terror. It makes new friends. Got it? Good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DailyKos
Time Magazine has a long article about how Congress allowed Corporate America to break its promises to American workers.
After her husband's death, Whitehouse knew the future would be tough, but she was confident in her economic survival. After all, the company had promised her a death benefit of $598 every two weeks for the rest of her life--a commitment she had in writing, one that was a matter of law.
She received the benefit payments until October 1990, when the check bounced. A corporate-takeover artist, later sent to prison for ripping off a pension fund and other financial improprieties, had stripped down the business and forced it into the U.S. bankruptcy court. There the obligation was erased, thanks to congressional legislation that gives employers the right to walk away from agreements with their employees.
At the same time bankruptcy is made harder for regular Americans, the republicans give big business a break. Another day in George Bush's America. … Congress's role has been pivotal. Lawmakers wrote bankruptcy regulations to allow corporations to scrap the health insurance they promised employees who retired early--sometimes voluntarily, quite often not. They wrote pension rules that encouraged corporations to underfund their retirement plans or switch to plans less favorable to employees. They denied workers the right to sue to enforce retirement promises[...]
One by one, lawmakers have undermined or destroyed policies that once afforded at least the possibility of a livable existence to many seniors, while at the same time encouraging corporations to repudiate lifetime-benefit agreements. All this under the guise of ensuring workers that they are in charge of their own destiny--such as it is.
I suppose this pro-corporation and ahti-worker move is part of the war on terror too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBSNews
While natural disasters in the Gulf Coast and the man-made disaster in Iraq continue to grab the public's attention, a constitutional disaster quietly threatens the nation.

The USA Patriot Act's renewal is now almost a fait accompli — accepted by all but the most steadfast civil libertarians in Congress. … This law, enacted during a "state of emergency" declared by President Bush and intended to be revisited in calmer times, is now effectively being made permanent. California Republican Representative Dana Rohrabacher has strongly objected to the reauthorization on this ground.

The Patriot Act has been and will continue to be used mainly against ordinary Americans accused of crimes unrelated to terrorism, or those who disagree with government policies or happen to be immigrants or of the Muslim faith.

The result is likely to be an enduring shift of power from the legislative and judicial branches to the executive branch — and less privacy and liberty for all. … New Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is unlikely to offer much relief; he has supported the Administration's so-called "war on terror" policies. Unlike retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote last year that the President did not have a "blank check" even in times of war, her proposed replacement, Harriet Miers, if confirmed would likely be more accommodating on these issues. Granting the President such broad new powers, especially given today's surveillance technologies, would change the very foundations of the American body politic. … The law can be and has been used overwhelmingly against Americans. The national security letters under Section 505 are akin to administrative subpoenas that demand documents without any court involvement at all, and even the secret foreign intelligence surveillance court in Section 215 must issues warrants if the FBI's application is formally in order. … Many of these defenders of the law count themselves as "strict constructionists," supposedly hewing to the Constitution's text and the framers' original intent. The intent of the Fourth Amendment is not difficult to discern:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. … Still, does the new threat of terrorism suddenly make it "reasonable" to issue warrants without probable cause — i.e., individual, fact-based suspicion — tying a person to the offense? Such unlimited warrants from King George III were an important spur to the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. I doubt that such a venerable and practical constitutional requirement has somehow lost its value or authority today. … Although the secrecy and gag orders in the law make it difficult to know the full extent of abuses, the Patriot Act has been notoriously used against innocent people like Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield (wrongly accused of involvement in the Madrid bombings); Muslim student Sami al-Hussayen (wrongly accused of material support for terrorism by exercising First Amendment rights to post publicly available material on his website); and foreign professors and intellectuals (including moderate Muslim professor Tariq Ramadan, who could have helped build bridges to the Muslim world but was excluded from accepting a professorship at Notre Dame through the Patriot Act).

The government has initiated deportation proceedings against even lawful permanent residents for engaging in constitutionally protected speech reflecting viewpoints with which the government disagrees, while major Muslim charities have had their assets frozen based on unchallengeable secret evidence. In one reported court case, an unnamed Internet service provider was even served with a national security letter that was later declared unconstitutional by a federal court on the grounds that it invaded Fourth Amendment privacy, by forcing disclosure of e-mail and websurfing records, and infringed First Amendment free speech by prohibiting the ISP from telling anyone about the letter.

And while the Administration maintains that no librarian has been served an order to disclose patron records, a recent federal court decision confirms the American Library Association survey and the private reports that many of us had received: Hundreds of librarians have been approached for records. The law has been formally invoked at times, but need not be: Librarians know it exists and that they can be jailed for noncompliance. In a recent federal court decision, the gag order preventing the librarian from disclosing such an order under the Patriot Act was held unconstitutional. The government is appealing the decision.
There is one tiny ray of hope on the horizon. The broad misinterpretation of eminent domain is finally coming under scrutiny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN
Contending that the Supreme Court has undermined a pillar of American society -- the sanctity of the home -- the House overwhelmingly approved a bill Thursday to block the court-approved seizure of private property for use by developers.
The bill, passed 376-38, would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force businesses and homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in June, recognized the power of local governments to seize property needed for private development projects that generate tax revenue. The decision drew criticism from private property, civil rights, farm and religious groups that said it was an abuse of the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause." That language provides for the taking of private property, with fair compensation, for public use.
The court's June decision, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, changed established constitutional principles by holding that "any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party."
I'm tired of underlining the most salient points. Look for the rest yourself. Then you tell me why the fuck I should cut any slack for Bush or the people who cheerfully support him. He does not care about freedom, duty, justice, or anything else as far as I can tell. Read the above, and see how he really acts, and how that translates into anything worthy of respect.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-11-2005, 08:31 PM
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 26,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1
Happy fucking Veterans Day.
Thanks, I thought no one remembered.

Considering that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have a combined military career of Bush's questionable Guard service, I would think no one would surprised by how badly they are treating the service members and how badly they have executed this war.

I am still dumbfounded the country re-elected these scary low-lifes and that the Dem's failed to produce a viable candidate that could appeal the the moderates.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-11-2005, 08:40 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrfranchi
Thanks, I thought no one remembered.

Considering that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have a combined military career of Bush's questionable Guard service, I would think no one would surprised by how badly they are treating the service members and how badly they have executed this war.

I am still dumbfounded the country re-elected these scary low-lifes and that the Dem's failed to produce a viable candidate that could appeal the the moderates.

Jim
I would have kept going, but there are limits to how much I can carm in at one time. Not only did people elect him, they re-elected him, and deliberately ignore everything he is doing (doing to them too). Not only that, but anyone who calls Bush on anything is...
Liberal
Commie
Traitor
Terrorist sympathizer or Terrorist sympathizing putz
dishonest wing-nut
or CHOKEONATURDLEFTWINGCUTESYSEMANTICBITCH!!!!

The man these people elected disgusts me. What they've been doing to this country disgusts me. It is my fondest Christmas wish that Fitzgerald could somehow find a way to send all their sorry asses to some maximum security hard time federal prison, for the rest of their miserable lives. Hard labor, and bread and water, forever would be good too.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-11-2005, 09:01 PM
Orbifold Orbifold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
You're afraid Joe Blow in Guantanamo might not be getting a square shake.
"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done unto me."

Quote:
I just want to win so that we can be a good and gentle society again.
President Bush, for once saying something I agree with about the war on terror: "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world..."

Do you think that our treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees has an affect on the image of the United States to the rest of the World? Do you think the United States is not judged by how it treats those who are at its mercy? Do you think that stomping on the rights of those detainees makes terror more or less acceptable to the enemies you're so terrified of?

How many freedoms are you willing to sacrifice on the altar of your fear, anyway? Habeus corpus for detainees? Habeus corpus for yourself?

And if the war on terror ends about as promptly as the war on drugs, i.e. not at all...what then? How long are you willing to tolerate not being a "good and gentle" society, in the name of security?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-11-2005, 10:27 PM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbifold
"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done unto me."
I'm down with that. I hope whatever God approves of terrorism suffers as much as it can.

Quote:
President Bush, for once saying something I agree with about the war on terror: "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world..."
Oh, I disagree.

Quote:
Do you think that our treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees has an affect on the image of the United States to the rest of the World?
Good question. Answer: No.

What does have an affect on the image of the United States to the rest of the world is how are treatment of Gitmo prisoners is portrayed and perceived. I don't beleive that it is portrayed accurately. I beleive that truly disgusting and reprehensible individuals such as yourself make false portrayals for political and rhetorical gain without regards to how it damages the US, and without regards to the truth. I don't think the left has any credibility. You can only falsify so much. Koran flushing, Dan Rather's documents, pretending you didn't vote for the war, etc, etc, before it is only reasonalbe to conclude that you are a bunch of scumbags playing games for political gain who are not to be trusted. The very casualness with which you make such accusations demonstrates your lack of commitment to the truth.

You would like to hold the President accountable. The fact is that you are accountable for the damage to our Nation for false and irresponsible accusations.

I am fully cognizant of the fact that Bush lied. He stated for a certainty that Iraq had WMDs when in fact he was not certain. I think it is a serious and egregious lapse. Nonetheless it pales in comparison to the fact that I don't trust anything that the left says. Time and time again we have lies and deception from the top on down. False and damaging accusations made irresponsibly simply for political gain, without regard to the consequences that those accusations entail. There's a lot that I hate about the right and Republicans right now. But, it's not for our Iraq policy. I'm behind that. I think the failings of the right and Republicans are domestic and a matter of open policy.

The left though is simply inscrutable. I don't even know what they stand for except for criticizing the right. There's plenty to criticize, there's plenty to help and correct with. I just don't fucking understand how such a large percentage of the country can act like petulant children. I don't understand how you can make up shit with such facility.

I remember being pissed at Whitewater. I remember defending Clinton on this board about Whitewater. I remember being commended by left-leaning posters for my commitment to truth and openmindedness. The fact is that later on these same assholes were giving me hell because I took issue with the fact that Clinton perjured himself.

You act as if I give a shit what you think of me. For that to matter, I have to respect you. I don't. You have to have a commitment to the truth. You have to demonstrate restraint and a commitment to accuracy. You have to be circumspect in your accusations and conclusions. In short, you have to be worthy of respect be your opinion of me matters.

When I read these hyperbolous OPs about how freedom is on its last legs and about to collapse and the union is about to fall apart and it's all Bush and Cheney's fault, it is clear to me that you are a bunch of stupid dishonest yahoos unworthy of respect and consideration.

It's just fucking stupid. And, if you do anything but ridicule such stupid sentiments you put yourself in the same boat as the rest of the wingnuts. When you make irresponsible, damaging and unproven statements and draw large conclusions from disputable and fragmentary evidence, you demonstrate that you are not to be trusted.

Wake up. I am unhappy with the way the government is being run. I am not a Republican syncophant. Nonetheless you're politics and mine will not agree 100% If you are anything but the total idiot you have portrayed yourself in this thread to be you will realize that doesn't make us enemies.

If you or anybody else on the left has any fucking intelligence whatsoever you will realize that the nonevangelical right, the progressives, the Goldwater conservatives are potential allies. ALL you have to do is abandon the bullshit, the sweeping generalizations, the lies, the dishonesty....

and our country will again become what it was regardless of what party is in power. We will have a loyal opposition.

It makes no difference that this rabid partisanship was conceived during the Clinton years by Republicans. It was perfected by the Democrats as righteous revenge. It is a mistake. We need a loyal opposition.

We would have a better presidency and a better country for it.

The left's penchant for hyperbole and falsehood and rhetoric is not even self-serving any more. It is the whining of a loser who's about to become irrelevant.
There have been enough lies and false accusations by the left... enough ugly disloyalty that the right will win if this is fought out to its ultimate conclusion.

That would be a bad thing.

Quote:
Do you think the United States is not judged by how it treats those who are at its mercy? Do you think that stomping on the rights of those detainees makes terror more or less acceptable to the enemies you're so terrified of?
I think you're a loser and a dishonest asshole for attempting to frame it as such.

Quote:
How many freedoms are you willing to sacrifice on the altar of your fear, anyway? Habeus corpus for detainees? Habeus corpus for yourself?
I have no sympathy whatsoever. I think you've framed it wrong. I don't trust your conclusions, and I think your arguments are dismissable from the way you make them.

These are not US citizens and they are not enemy combatants of a sovereign nation signatory to the Geneva convention. These are terrorists who have evolved as a methodology a way for waging combatant that takes advantage of the fact that they are neither. Since they respect neither, it does not apply to them. Their methodology is dependant upon us following rules that they will not follow. We are under know moral compulsion to follow a standard that they do not respect. The brutal fact is that warfare (and debate for the matter) must be waged at the lowest common denominator. If they do not respect the rights of noncombatments, and they do not follow the Geneva conventions, and they depend on us to follow them in order for their strategy to work, it is no longer incumbent upon us to follow those conventions ourselves. In fact, it is foolish. It is regrettable and sad, but the fact that they have chosen to wage war at such a level and thereby compelled us to do so as well, and the fact that innocents suffer because of it, lies on their shoulders, not ours.

Quote:
And if the war on terror ends about as promptly as the war on drugs, i.e. not at all...what then? How long are you willing to tolerate not being a "good and gentle" society, in the name of security?
It's a good question though you meant it rhetorically. The answer is, not as long as you can. The sad fact of the matter is that war is ugly and horrible. Wars need to end. For them to end there needs to be a winner and a loser. We need to win, and we need to do what it takes to win. We cannot end up like Israel which has been forced to limit itself in response to aggression. Israel's problems have been going on for decades because they have never been allowed to win.... or to lose. A misguided sense of justice has meant that Israel's conflicts have become generational. If they had been alllowed to win.... or lose. The problems would be over. Instead we have forced Israel and the Palestinians to wage a decades long low level conflict that has caused millions to suffer over decades.

War is ugly. You can't change that. This particular brand of war is especially ugly. It needs to be fought aggressively and won, and then it needs to be over.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:05 AM
FinnAgain FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he become a monster.
And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes back into you."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
What does have an affect on the image of the United States to the rest of the world is how are treatment of Gitmo prisoners is portrayed and perceived. I don't beleive that it is portrayed accurately.
Wow... so even without the "Koran flushing", you think all the instances of torture murder and rape that've occured in our prisons don't matter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
You can only falsify so much. Koran flushing, Dan Rather's documents, pretending you didn't vote for the war, etc, etc, before it is only reasonalbe to conclude that you are a bunch of scumbags playing games for political gain who are not to be trusted.
Fallacy of hasty generaliztion much?

Besides, I thought Rather simply didn't perform due dilligence with the 'evidence' of Bush's nat' guard service, and that the Koran story was based on the word of detainees which turned out to be incorrect. am I mis-re-membering?

Also, on the issue of the war, IIRC the resolution authorized the use of force if it was necessary. Bush was claiming that there was a way to avoid the war, when he was lying all the time and planned on forcing the nation into war even if they ahd to distort intel in order to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
You would like to hold the President accountable. The fact is that you are accountable for the damage to our Nation for false and irresponsible accusations.
Honestly, do you believe this?
What, Abu Graib is a summer camp and it's just those Damn Libruls who're making a big stink about it?

Seriously Scylla, I've generally found you to be a thoughtful and articulare conservative Doper, but this shit is just nuts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
You have to have a commitment to the truth. You have to demonstrate restraint and a commitment to accuracy. You have to be circumspect in your accusations and conclusions. In short, you have to be worthy of respect be your opinion of me matters.
And would attacking all of "the left" be consistent with those things Scylla?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
When you make irresponsible, damaging and unproven statements and draw large conclusions from disputable and fragmentary evidence, you demonstrate that you are not to be trusted.
Draw large conclusions from disputable and fragmentary evidence?
Isn't that something like that fallacy of hasty generalization?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
These are not US citizens and they are not enemy combatants of a sovereign nation signatory to the Geneva convention. These are terrorists who have evolved as a methodology a way for waging combatant that takes advantage of the fact that they are neither.
And what of all the innocents we've captured and tortured?
Come on Scylla, this is absurd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
We are under know moral compulsion to follow a standard that they do not respect.
Yes, we are.
Because we're Americans, and that's supposed to mean something.
We should not lower ourselves to the level of whatever scum we're fighting.
Besides, torture is not effective and does, indeed, help unite our enemies against us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
It is regrettable and sad, but the fact that they have chosen to wage war at such a level and thereby compelled us to do so as well, and the fact that innocents suffer because of it, lies on their shoulders, not ours.
No.
Nobody has compelled us to do anything.
We have chosen, of our own free will, to, in several ways, become the thing we said we were fighting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
We need to win, and we need to do what it takes to win.
Can we win hearts and minds by making those same hearts and mind fill up with hate for us? Why champion a pyrrhic victory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
We cannot end up like Israel which has been forced to limit itself in response to aggression. Israel's problems have been going on for decades because they have never been allowed to win.... or to lose. A misguided sense of justice has meant that Israel's conflicts have become generational. If they had been alllowed to win.... or lose. The problems would be over. Instead we have forced Israel and the Palestinians to wage a decades long low level conflict that has caused millions to suffer over decades.
How could Israel have 'won' its war, other than genocide?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
War is ugly. You can't change that. This particular brand of war is especially ugly. It needs to be fought aggressively and won, and then it needs to be over.
"They make a desert and call it peace"
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:46 AM
Orbifold Orbifold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
I beleive that truly disgusting and reprehensible individuals such as yourself...

[...]

I don't understand how you can make up shit with such facility.

[...]

You act as if I give a shit what you think of me. For that to matter, I have to respect you. I don't.

[...]

If you are anything but the total idiot you have portrayed yourself in this thread to be...

[...]

I think you're a loser and a dishonest asshole for attempting to frame it as such.
Allow me to assure you that the sentiment is now entirely mutual.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11-12-2005, 06:45 AM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinnAgain
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he become a monster.
And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes back into you."
I don't think that's one quote, and I think the second part goes:

"When you gaze into the abyss the abyss must also gaze into you"

Personally, I take heart in that. All you lefties are like "Oh, no! The Abyss. It's looking at us! Run away! Hide! It's going to see us, and know what weak-ass pussies we are!"

Meanwhle, Bush Rummy et al will be like "You best not be looking at me or you're going to get 'byss slapped."

Seriously, what the quote means is the Abyss takes your measure.

Anyway, life's abyss and then you die.

Quote:
Wow... so even without the "Koran flushing", you think all the instances of torture murder and rape that've occured in our prisons don't matter?
No. I give them about as much credibility as if they came from Baghdad Bob.



Quote:
Fallacy of hasty generaliztion much?
Yes, that's what you guys are doing, by assuming individual rights violations, if they actually occur are the norm based on individual accounts.

Quote:
Besides, I thought Rather simply didn't perform due dilligence with the 'evidence' of Bush's nat' guard service, and that the Koran story was based on the word of detainees which turned out to be incorrect. am I mis-re-membering?
No. That's correct. To me they indicate a selective perception and selection looking to support a preconveived notion and those drawing conclusions from or willing to support such are not to be trusted.

Quote:
Also, on the issue of the war, IIRC the resolution authorized the use of force if it was necessary. Bush was claiming that there was a way to avoid the war, when he was lying all the time and planned on forcing the nation into war even if they ahd to distort intel in order to do it.
We had two resolutions authorizing the use of force. The Dems wanted a second one so they could show how much they supported the use of force. Make no mistake, the second one was an endorsement of the President's decision before the fact. Read the transcripts with all of Kerry's and Kennedy's "Their can be no doubt that Saddam posesses WMDS and is one of the worst dictators...."

As for the second part, the SIC saw the same data the President did and came to the same conclusion, and a special bipartisan committee concluded there was no manipulation.

What leg do you stand on?



Quote:
Honestly, do you believe this?
What, Abu Graib is a summer camp and it's just those Damn Libruls who're making a big stink about it?
Yes.

Quote:
Seriously Scylla, I've generally found you to be a thoughtful and articulare conservative Doper, but this shit is just nuts.
No. It's Bananas. B.A.N.A.N.A.S!



Quote:
And would attacking all of "the left" be consistent with those things Scylla?
Yes. It needs to be attacked.



Quote:
Draw large conclusions from disputable and fragmentary evidence?
Isn't that something like that fallacy of hasty generalization?
Sure is. It seems de riguer, these days.



Quote:
And what of all the innocents we've captured and tortured?
Come on Scylla, this is absurd.
What about them? Innocents will suffer in war. It should be minimized to whatever extent possible, but the blame for the fact that we must go to war and that innocents must suffer because of our actions lies at the feet of those who attacked us.



Quote:
Because we're Americans, and that's supposed to mean something.
We should not lower ourselves to the level of whatever scum we're fighting.
Besides, torture is not effective and does, indeed, help unite our enemies against us.
I dunno. What's the difference between torture and strong interrogation. Where is the line drawn? It does indeed help our enemies when suitable interrogation is mischaracterized and reported as torture.



Quote:
No.
Nobody has compelled us to do anything.
We have chosen, of our own free will, to, in several ways, become the thing we said we were fighting.
You think I'm crazy? How can you compare us this away and expect me to take you seriously? We're not cutting people's heads off. We don't target civilians.



Quote:
Can we win hearts and minds by making those same hearts and mind fill up with hate for us? Why champion a pyrrhic victory?
Who said anything about hearts and minds? We're not waging a PR campaign. Those that dislike us will continue to do so.



Quote:
How could Israel have 'won' its war, other than genocide?
Sure.



Quote:
"They make a desert and call it peace"
Again, I don't trust your arguments because you don't begin from the same place as I do. You begin with the beleif that we are evil and doing wrong, have always done so, and continue to do so.

"Why do you hate America" is a ridiculed argument, but in fact it's a reduction to absurdity of a valid point. The left begins from, and proceeds from the premise that we're the bad guy.

We're not.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 11-12-2005, 06:47 AM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbifold
Allow me to assure you that the sentiment is now entirely mutual.
I never thought otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 11-12-2005, 07:19 AM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay
You used to be reasonable and funny. What happened to make you a Bush-lickin' wanker, anyway?
You know, I've read most of this thread, and I've come to the conclusion that, indeed Scylla is both. He has shown that he is capable of being humorous and, on occasion, capable of reasonable debate. He probably still is.

But, he also lets his other, apparently more true side show, where he is a liberal-hating, apologist with flecks of foam around his rabid mouth, and who is incapable of actual debate. Just watch when he starts spouting about how then durn liberals run away from fights (compare Kerry v. Bush in Vietnam, asswipe), can't protect our national security, want to sing kumbaya with Gitmo detainees, all the while overlooking the massive problems with this administration. The question is which one is the real Scylla. Ask him, and, true to his form, he'll blame the liberals for pushing him so far that he has to explode with irrational vitriol and idiotic namecalling. Ask me? I think he's a small minded, hyper masculine type A personality who can, on occassion, make a joke or a point. The question is whether or not it's worth it to you, to sort through his bullshit to get to it.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 11-12-2005, 08:10 AM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet
You know, I've read most of this thread, and I've come to the conclusion that, indeed Scylla is both. He has shown that he is capable of being humorous and, on occasion, capable of reasonable debate. He probably still is.
A cogent analysis, Watson.

Quote:
But, he also lets his other, apparently more true side show, where he is a liberal-hating, apologist with flecks of foam around his rabid mouth, and who is incapable of actual debate.
When the moon is full, even an evangelical conservative who says his prayers by night can become a rabid-liberal hater.


Quote:
Just watch when he starts spouting about how then durn liberals run away from fights (compare Kerry v. Bush in Vietnam, asswipe), can't protect our national security, want to sing kumbaya with Gitmo detainees, all the while overlooking the massive problems with this administration. The question is which one is the real Scylla. Ask him, and, true to his form, he'll blame the liberals for pushing him so far that he has to explode with irrational vitriol and idiotic namecalling. Ask me? I think he's a small minded, hyper masculine type A personality who can, on occassion, make a joke or a point. The question is whether or not it's worth it to you, to sort through his bullshit to get to it.

And this little piggy built his house out of straw.



What a reasonable aside. Clearly, it is I, Scylla who am off the wall.

Here we are in at least the 3,000 anti-bush, anti-conservative thread, in which you same bunch of wankers solemnly agree with the most hyperbolous half-wit tripe, whilst scowling down and tsk-tsking anybody who happens to come along and point out that the sky is not quite falling yet.

How can you keep a straight face in a thread in which the OP solemnly assures us that Bush and Cheney have singlehandedly destroyed the United States, and two hundred years worth of freedoms?

You're simply full of shit, which, by itself, is ok. I'm full of shit, too.

You guys seem to really actually beleive what you say, and that's just scary stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 11-12-2005, 08:37 AM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
I'll tell you my exact honest opinion.
The left has lost sight of the fact that we are at war and are in this together.
Hell no, we are not in this together. For on thing, if we were, the military would not be getting abused the way they are by the Bush administration. For another, the "with me or against me attitude" is a good way to say there is no "togethter", only OBEY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
They are playing a power game, and are more concerned about petty rights violations (Yes I said "petty" rights violations, and they are fucking petty compared to having our cities blown up) than they are about the fact that there is an entire fucking society out there trying to kill us.
I was born and raised in NYC, and used to work right near the World Trade Center (40 Wall Street actually). I knew people who worked all over that area. So don't wave those buildings in my face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
THey lie constantly, they manufacture scandals, and they say what they say for political effect, not for their actual job, which is to guide the country I don't trust them or their motivations and I find them to be misguided and morally reprehensible.
Gee, that sounds just like Bush and his cronies. They would not know the truth if it jumped up and bit them on the ass. They are compulsive liars. They repeat the same lies even when they are shown to be untrue. WMD, yellow cake, AlQueda-Iran connections. All lies still being told. Faked documents. Documents proving that the war was being planned regardless of evidence or events (Downing Street). Cooking of intel (CIA report, Army WMD search reports etc). So who's the liars?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
As for cowardice. Yes I'm a coward. Al Quaeda is an enemy that frightens me. ... They could take us down.
So let's sell our country up the river, just so the boogieman under the bed won't get you. Justice, freedom, standing up for what is right? Forget that, just don't let the monster in the closet get you? If you are willing to sell America so cheaply, then hell yess you are a coward. I'd rather go down fighting than sell out so easily to a gang of far right fearmongers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
Bush would be a better president if he didn't have half the fucking government working against him. The left should know this. Clinton would have been better if he wasn't being fucked over.
Well hell. Let's just make him a fucking king then. We don't need a Congress or Constitution, we have a king. We don't need laws, Bush can rule by decree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
Take gay rights. Doma came under Clinton. Kerry was anti-gay marriage. Apparently though there was some theory that he was secretly pro-gay marriage, but had to say he was anti for political reasons.
So, am I to understand that this support of gay marriage is founded on a secret stance underlying a dishonest one?
Who ran his first campaign as the guy who would be everyone's resident, actively courted the gay vote, and then sold out to the religious wingnuts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
On the other side of the coin, I've renounced my Republicanism. I think Republicans suck. This is not my father's Republican party. It is not my Republican party. Bush is conservative in the one meaning of the word I strongly disaprove of.... socially. Social conservatives are evangelical ignorant hate-mongering scum that deserve to look into the mirror of radical fundamentalist Islam.
Fiscally, I think Bush may end up being disastrous unless we get very very lucky. I think the thinly veiled neocon dream of global supremacy is a true kick in the face to our legitimate role of global leadership... by example.
That's my take on them. They only care about themselves, and to hell with the country. Now you're starting to get it. They prey on fear and hate, and foster it for personal gain. So why support them? Why buy into their bullsit? By your own words, you admit they are absolutely no good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
The one thing I like about Bush is that he is unwavering. He has a fucking goal and it's a good goal vis a vis terror. He doesn't do giant 180 degree turns for political effect. He wants to win, and y'all are too stupid to realize that he's not playing populist games.
Win what? For who? It sure as fuck isn't for us. Unwavering? Bush would not change one iota even if the entire country went up in flames. He lives in his own little fanasy world. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over, and expecting a different result. He'll never change, he'll never admit everything he ever touched in his whole life always went to shit, and even more inexcusable, he is nevr accountable for any of it. Fuck him with a rusty hatchet.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 11-12-2005, 10:30 AM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
A cogent analysis, Watson
Elementary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
When the moon is full, even an evangelical conservative who says his prayers by night can become a rabid-liberal hater.
Or a half- moon. Or a quarter moon. Or a new moon. Or if there is any satellite at all in the night sky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
What a reasonable aside. Clearly, it is I, Scylla who am off the wall.
Yes, you do go off the wall, off the handle, and off the deep end. Not all the time, but often enough to make it a pain to have to slog through the crap to get to the point you were trying to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
Here we are in at least the 3,000 anti-bush, anti-conservative thread, in which you same bunch of wankers solemnly agree with the most hyperbolous half-wit tripe, whilst scowling down and tsk-tsking anybody who happens to come along and point out that the sky is not quite falling yet.
Gosh, where in heavens could I have gotten the idea that you thrive on overreaction? But points for working in the oppressed nature of the poor conservatives on the board. I'll give you a hint, when you lower yourself to the level of the screeching harpies on the left, you aren't winning the debate. And when you lump in the vast majority of the board in with them, you aren't winning any friends either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
How can you keep a straight face in a thread in which the OP solemnly assures us that Bush and Cheney have singlehandedly destroyed the United States, and two hundred years worth of freedoms?
By dealing with the underlying issues rather than joining in the cacophony of idiotic namecalling of those who dare to disagree. I know that is wayyyyyy to much to expect from you, but a guy can dream, can't he.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
You're simply full of shit,
I see that reasoned debate is indeed your forte.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
I'm full of shit, too.
See, it's not impossible for people of different political ideologies to agree!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by scylla
You guys seem to really actually beleive what you say, and that's just scary stupid.
Yes, I actually believe you are a small minded, hyper masculine type A personality who can, on occassion, make a joke or a point. I also actually believe you, on occasions such as this thread, can give Dio and whoever the idiot OP person is, a run for their money in the idiotic demonization of those who have the audicity to disagree with you. If those beliefs scare you, maybe you should pay more attention to your own posts.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 11-12-2005, 11:16 AM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxNews
Methodist Bishops Repent Iraq War 'Complicity'
Thursday, November 10, 2005
WASHINGTON — Ninety-five bishops from President Bush's church said Thursday they repent their "complicity" in the "unjust and immoral" invasion and occupation of Iraq.
"In the face of the United States administration's rush toward military action based on misleading information, too many of us were silent," said a statement of conscience signed by more than half of the 164 retired and active United Methodist bishops worldwide. ... "The only solution seems to be to stay the course. But if you're on the wrong course, you don't stay the course," Carder said. "At the heart of the Christian faith is the willingness to acknowledge mistakes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Wesley Clark
During an interview on Fox News (of all places):
Well, I think he, ah, there's a lot to answer for because the intelligence that was available was hyped. I was one of many people who had seen previous intelligence that said the best judgment of the intelligence community was there might be weapons of mass destruction, some materials were unaccounted for. But the talk about mushroom clouds that Secretary Cheney was certain they were going to get a nuclear device fairly soon and so forth; it was irresponsible, it was ungrounded in the facts and the Congress that voted on the resolution never had the chance to see all the dissenting opinions within the intelligence community so I think there's a lot to be looked at here. I think strategically, though, we can see now, four years after 9/11, that going into Iraq in a way to fight the war on terror was a strategic blunder. ... They never looked at whether the administration distorted the information that was available in its approach to the public and they specifically said they weren't authorized to do that. That's what has to be looked at by this <crosstalk> Senate committee and they haven't done so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Washington Post
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence. Neither assertion is wholly accurate. But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."
But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry." ... In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release.
Are people coming back to their senses? I don't think this is anything more than a blip, which will be spun out of existence, followed by pesonal attacks and appeals to blind stupid loyalty. It's the cynic in me I guess.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 11-12-2005, 12:07 PM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
RE: Our freedom is on it's last legs (sic).

I agree. Why, just the other day Jones started talking about punctuated equilibrium like a loon. I told him to hush but he wouldn't listen. Faster than you can say "immaculate conception" the red shirts had him in handcuffs. Such a pity -- I liked Jones a lot.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 11-12-2005, 03:22 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
I posted enough cites here to choke a horse. Are they going to just be ignored?
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 11-12-2005, 05:07 PM
Hamlet Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1
I posted enough cites here to choke a horse. Are they going to just be ignored?
Maybe they're choking a different farm animal...
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 11-12-2005, 05:25 PM
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 26,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1
I posted enough cites here to choke a horse. Are they going to just be ignored?
As Scylla is the only one in favor of surrendering our rights, and he has apparently given up reasoned discourse in favor of spewing venom. I doubt your cites will be responded too. I don't know if even Clothahump would defend the surrendering of our rights.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 11-12-2005, 06:03 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Well, hell. I was getting the feeling we were just wasting our time anyway..
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 11-12-2005, 08:02 PM
Lissa Lissa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by lno
Our country is at war and our government has the obligation to protect the American people. There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. So you bet we'll aggressively pursue them.

Do you want to wait for a mushroom cloud over your city because the government's hands are tied by bureaucratic red tape? After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.
Are you asking if I would give my life for freedom? Yes I would. Next question.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 11-13-2005, 03:18 PM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1
Hell no, we are not in this together.
Hells yes, we are. Same country, same society, no man is an island entire of itself and all that crap."


Quote:
I was born and raised in NYC, and used to work right near the World Trade Center (40 Wall Street actually). I knew people who worked all over that area. So don't wave those buildings in my face.
I was born in the Bronx and I was in the WTC for the garage bombing, so stick that up your ass.

Quote:
Gee, that sounds just like Bush and his cronies. They would not know the truth if it jumped up and bit them on the ass. They are compulsive liars. They repeat the same lies even when they are shown to be untrue. WMD, yellow cake, AlQueda-Iran connections. All lies still being told. Faked documents. Documents proving that the war was being planned regardless of evidence or events (Downing Street). Cooking of intel (CIA report, Army WMD search reports etc). So who's the liars?
You are. Unless by faked documents you're referring to Dan Rather's.

Quote:
So let's sell our country up the river, just so the boogieman under the bed won't get you. Justice, freedom, standing up for what is right? Forget that, just don't let the monster in the closet get you? If you are willing to sell America so cheaply, then hell yess you are a coward. I'd rather go down fighting than sell out so easily to a gang of far right fearmongers.
This is precisely why I have no respect for you wingnuts. It's why I find you despicable and sleazy. You consider the first bombing of the WTC, the second hijacking attacks that left thousands dead in a smoking pile of rubble, the Marine barrack attacks, the Cole, Bali, Spain, the London Subway, the ongoing terror attacks in Iraq, etc, etc, to the be the work of "boogieman under the bed?"

I can't beleive a human being could be so blindly stupid as to say outright that we just made that up, it never happened, and there is no Al Quaeda. One day, you will have a collision with reality. Or, perhaps not.

How do I talk to somebody who insists on such stupidity?



Quote:
Well hell. Let's just make him a fucking king then. We don't need a Congress or Constitution, we have a king. We don't need laws, Bush can rule by decree.

And, people in this very thread have lamented that I don't seem to be making reasonable and intelligent points much anymore. Well, I'm up against arguments too stupid to refute.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 11-13-2005, 03:39 PM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1
I posted enough cites here to choke a horse. Are they going to just be ignored?
Easy, Glenn Close, easy.


Quote:
Well, hell. I was getting the feeling we were just wasting our time anyway..
Your engaging in political debate on an internet message board. Don't tell me you didn't think you weren't wasting your time.


And, I'm sorry you're so impatient. I do occasionally have better things to do than waste my time at this.


Awwright, your first cite:

95 out of 164 retired Methodist Bishops signed some sort of thing blaming themselves for their complicity in silence to GWB's invasion.

So? I can post cites, too. You're supposed to tell me what they mean. Personally, I don't understand why retired 95 Methodist Bishops feel they need to apologize for the war in Iraq, or why the other 69 don't and frankly, I don't care.


Your second one:

Wes Clark's opinion varies from the findings of the Bipartisan committee that examined the evidence leading up to the war and found those things did not occur. I find the Bipartisan committees report to be more researched and better founded then Wes' off the cuff opinions.


Third one:

The Senate intelligence committee has the same access to intelligence as the Pres, as I understand these things. Senate in general has more limited access. That's the reason why we have a Senate intelligence committee, as part of the checks and balances that make sure the administration isn't feeding selective of false information to lawmakers.

This is a salient point, that this article neglects. Because it leaves out material facts, I don't find it to be particularly interesting or credible.


Happy?
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 11-13-2005, 04:01 PM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1
Gee, that sounds just like Bush and his cronies. They would not know the truth if it jumped up and bit them on the ass. They are compulsive liars. They repeat the same lies even when they are shown to be untrue. WMD, yellow cake, AlQueda-Iran connections. All lies still being told. Faked documents. Documents proving that the war was being planned regardless of evidence or events (Downing Street). Cooking of intel (CIA report, Army WMD search reports etc). So who's the liars?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla
You are. Unless by faked documents you're referring to Dan Rather's.
Holy fuck, you almost killed me! I was eating a handful of skittles and sucked 'em down my gullet. Don't do that again.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 11-13-2005, 07:05 PM
FinnAgain FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Scylla: you've gone round the bend. If such things occur? What about the dozens of people who've died under torture by our forces? What does it say that such things can happen over, and over, and over again, and nobody stops them? If that doesn't point to systemic problem, I don't know what does.

Further, when I specifically say that, in some ways, we're doing the same things our enemies do you twist that into fitting your absurd "Libruls are teh suxorz!" rant. Forgetting, it seems, that I am not a Liberal, nor a Democrat.

As for the resolutions for the war, did the folks know about how the OSP was operating? Or that Bush knew certain documents were, indeed, fakes (Niger Yellow Cake), before he made claims that they were genuine.

But I guess you'll discount all of that, and question my patriotism to boot simply because I want us held to the highest possible standard. So, I suppose, I'll simply conclude by saying:

"America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah!"
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 11-13-2005, 07:22 PM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinnAgain
Scylla: you've gone round the bend.
It's possible.

Quote:
What about the dozens of people who've died under torture by our forces?
I'll make you a deal:

You give me proof of two dozen or more dead by torture by US forces in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001, and I will never say a word defending this war again.

If on the other hand, you fail to provide the proof to this very serious accusation that you have made, I will consider you a liar, who hates America and defames its soldiers simply for rhetorical value. Y'know, a traitor.

Actually, I'll just consider you another hyperbolous wingnut.


Quote:
As for the resolutions for the war, did the folks know about how the OSP was operating? Or that Bush knew certain documents were, indeed, fakes (Niger Yellow Cake), before he made claims that they were genuine.
I'm sorry, we've done yellow cake to death for years.

Quote:
But I guess you'll discount all of that, and question my patriotism to boot simply because I want us held to the highest possible standard.
Two out of three is pretty good, but it's only fair to hold you to the same standard.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.