Rand, I know you’re having a lot of fun with the “I’m so rich” schtick, but could you take a minute to answer my question?
As if his other posts didn’t already, a little nip of Black Bush reminded me his money hasn’t bought him taste.
My Royal Anus is pampered by naught but the finest gilt-threaded embroideries of all Indie!
Tonight I shall sup on a pretty lady, hollowed out and filled with wine!
Suck on that, detainee defenders!
Nope. It’s not within either of this thread’s topics (which are 1. The WaPo article is BS and 2. I’m meeeellllllting!!)
Ok, now we know you are lying. Everybody on the SDMB knows that it’s impossible to afford health insurance!
Well that’s obviously going to be a penis, so Im not clicking.
And yet, you are still brave enough to post about your monthy Scotch budget in this very thread. But it’s okay - wouldn’t want to collapse that house of cards you’ve put so much effort into building.
It must be a bean, beef and cheese burrito, the Holy Grail of burritos.
Are you sure you’re not a mouse from the desert?
Actually, I think I’d rather put a dick in my mouth than what’s at the other end of that link.
I think it’s entirely on topic for this thread. If our government is incarcerating people, what level of competent record keeping can we expect to ensure our safety and human rights?
Could you point out for us a post or poster that is “100 percent pro-detainee”? If you cannot, and I’m betting you can’t, could you define the phrase in some way that might allow us to believe, even for a fleeting moment, that you have the slightest idea what you are talking about?
And if a detainee is innocent (as we have some reason to suspect), wouldn’t you necessarily have to be “100 percent” favorable to that “detainee”? Is it your contention that human rights are nullified by suspicion alone, and that due process applies only to the provably innocent? Explain if you can how such innocence can be proven without due process, and the protections therein?
Given the clear advantages to displaying for a doubting world that we have clear, irrefutable, and damning evidence of guilt, what, in your estimation, accounts for our reluctance to produce any?
Meh, that’s not a meltdown. Now, THIS, this, is a meltdown.
Oh, and if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go and refill my cats’ golden water dishes, which are set with priceless red diamonds.
Amen, sister. That had to be the Grand Poobah of trainwreck meltdowns. It even spilled over into LiveJournal from what I remember.
But I could have sworn there a big red 72 point “CUNT!” thrown in for good measure. Or was that a different train-wreck?
(hmm – possibly that’s what I’m remembering from the LJ spillover)
Part of the success of the Republican party over the last 30 years has been through suckering upper-middle class tools like **Rand **into thinking their interests are aligned with the interests of the wealthy.
Dude, you WORK for a living. I don’t care how expensive your shirts are, you’re still a fucking peasant like the rest of us.
You know, I used to think you were probably a smart guy (for a liberal douche) and you chose your sardonic/ironic/whimsical posting style because you thought it was funny. I know longer labor under any such assumption. Rather, I think you post the way you do to hide the fact that you don’t know what the hell is going on most of the time.
The only thing I came into this thread to argue was that people shouldn’t get all hot and bothered over two reporters’ opinions that “many” detainees do not have “comprehensive case files.”. That’s it. I could be the president of an organization fighting for detainees rights (or hell, a detainee) and still make that argument. The argument has nothing to do with my views on the detainees’ situation or human rights or due process or burritoes or anything.
It really pisses me off that you and others have to cut to the ultimate issue every time, and you are still doing it (as in the post I’m quoting). I’d start a pit thread over it were I not 100 percent confident it would be an anti-me and anti-Rand flamefest in 3 posts.
Aw. You poor baby.
Maybe you should go take a nap on your huge pile of money.
Something is trickling down from the upper class, but it’s not money. And it doesn’t smell like wisdom, either.
Yes. Good god, elucidator. We can’t have the poor conservatives actually admitting it’s wrong to strip people of their rights. Far better to deal with the fringe issues on which they can argue minutiae and technicalities. My god, if they actually openly agree with a liberal, they might even become one. Shudder to think.
ETA: Yes, I’m generalizing based off Rand Rover. It’s the same song and dance the conservatives on this board have been doing for years.
And you’ve utterly failed at demonstrating that. To recap, from the fucking OP:
So what you’re actually alleging is twofold: (1) the reporter is outright lying about what the Bush administration officials said; AND (2) that while the cases brought to trial have lacked comprehensive case files, we should presume that the ones not brought to trial are in good shape.
To make either of these claims without any supporting arguments or evidence puts you firmly in in the partisan la-la land in which you are convinced your opponents reside.
You aren’t here for serious debate. All you’ve done is quibble about the definition of a case file, which is totally irrelevant since what people are pissed off about is what the sources said, not the reporters’ linguistic gloss. You’re here to play games, which is odd since you claim to make so much money per hour. Assuming you’re not lying about being a tax attorney–and really, who would?–you must value your trolling really highly, which is sort of a whole different level of perversion.