6493 replies to this topic

[Don Giovanni]

El Guapo, on Friday, January 23rd, 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

1. There is no proof of torture. And to a certain extent I support tactics that get information our of war criminals that will save American lives.2. What law did anyone break? The reason there has been no charges, is because there is nothing to charge anyone with.3. Welcome war criminals into the US Penal system, that makes a lot of sense.

please. there is plenty of evidence. including an off the record confession by bush, and on the record confessions by underlings in the cia. do some research. also anyone who has experience in the field will tell you that torture only gets unreliable information, if any at all. you are using the same terrible excuse that bush has used to go against everything this country stands for. and he has broken international laws against the use of torture. there are no charges because he was president.i mean seriously you basically just said that you would support torture to get information. no wonder you see no problem with any of this.

[Don Giovanni]

Balloon guy, on Friday, January 23rd, 2009, 12:27 PM, said:

If you keep a guy up late and stick underwear on his head, and make him listen to loud music...you are not breaking the GC

semantics aside, a republican judge just ruled that a combination of technically legal procedures such as what you mention over time constitutes torture. and because of that, someone responsible for 9/11 can no longer be tried for the changes he was charged with.

[navybuttons]

Don Giovanni, on Friday, January 23rd, 2009, 6:24 PM, said:

you seem to be devoid of any ability to actually say anything.

to me, his post meant that you are naive if you believe anything like that would ever happen. what's more is that you put the responsibility on obama which disregards any precedent of law that i'm aware of.

Don Giovanni, on Friday, January 23rd, 2009, 6:35 PM, said:

semantics aside, a republican judge

does not compute.

[Don Giovanni]

can anyone here actually tell me why bush shouldnt be considered a war criminal if it has been established that his administration used waterboarding along with extended amounts of other "legal" forms of torture on detainees who had not been convicted or even charged of any crime?

[loogie]

Don Giovanni, on Friday, January 23rd, 2009, 8:52 PM, said:

can anyone here actually tell me why bush shouldnt be considered a war criminal if it has been established that his administration used waterboarding along with extended amounts of other "legal" forms of torture on detainees who had not been convicted or even charged of any crime?

Frank Reynolds waterboarded Sweet Dee in an episode of It's Always Sunny. She seems fine enough.

[brvheart]

Don Giovanni, on Friday, January 23rd, 2009, 10:52 PM, said:

can anyone here actually tell me why bush shouldnt be considered a war criminal if it has been established that his administration used waterboarding along with extended amounts of other "legal" forms of torture on detainees who had not been convicted or even charged of any crime?

Will you also be pushing for war criminal trials against Carter, Bush I, and Clinton?

[navybuttons]

Don Giovanni, on Friday, January 23rd, 2009, 8:52 PM, said:

can anyone here actually tell me why bush shouldnt be considered a war criminal if it has been established that his administration used waterboarding along with extended amounts of other "legal" forms of torture on detainees who had not been convicted or even charged of any crime?

you make it feel like i'm crazy if i agree with you.

[Balloon guy]

Don Giovanni, on Friday, January 23rd, 2009, 8:52 PM, said:

can anyone here actually tell me why bush shouldnt be considered a war criminal if it has been established that his administration used waterboarding along with extended amounts of other "legal" forms of torture on detainees who had not been convicted or even charged of any crime?

Let's see, can I argue that Bush shouldn't be tried for war crimes, for doing something you call legal, on people that don't exist?No, you got me there.Hey did you see the news about the former Gitmo detainee who left after 6 years and is now back to running terrorist cells?storyDon't you hate it when you find out these innocent people being held for no reason turn out to actually be terrorist? Oh well, I will bet that the next time a well armed marine grunt sees this guy, he won't be taken prisoner and shipped to an island where he will be fed, given a prayer rug and daily visits by the ACLU to ensure he isn't kept up after his bedtime.We can't ship thm to Canada apparently, since they won't even take a guy who hasn't bomber the US for over 30 years and has friends in the White HouseOh and how do you feel about Pakistan asking Obama to stop targeting Al Qeda strongholds because Al Qeda is putting them near civilians? I guess there's nothing we can do but surrender, I mean it would be our fault if someone innocent dies right?

[AmScray]

Don Giovanni, on Friday, January 23rd, 2009, 7:24 PM, said:

i seem to be seeing the same real world that most of the rest of the world sees, and a good amount of people in this country, including this constitutional law professor:

Good. Then perhaps you would be willing to pit your solid comprehension of real-world goings on against my disconnection with a little wager. We can post with a neutral 3rd party.You bet that anyone from the Bush crew will be tried for war crimes.I bet that no one from the administration will be tried for war crimes.I will lay you 6-1- minimum bet $100- and we can set up some sort of a time frame. Now, I can't forecast what your excuse will be for not taking the bet (I will make side action on that too), but if I'm wrong and you sincerely believe that you're correct and firmly grasping reality- that there is indeed a realistic chance of this happening- then surely one parallel universe in five would indict them in a court of law, so I'm giving you a +ev situation to prove that you sincerely believe in what you're saying, as opposed to being a typical delusionaly idealistic leftist retard prattling a bunch of pie-eyed nonsense that has no application whatsoever to the real world, even though you insist that it does. Time to put your money where your mouth is, Corky.

[Balloon guy]

Here's the title of the story:Obama breaks from BushFirst paragrapg to set the tone of the story:

Quote

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush's unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.

Here's the interesting paragraph:

Quote

He decreed that interrogators must follow techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual when questioning terrorism suspects, even as he ordered a review that could allow CIA interrogators to use other methods for high-value targets. Also, while a new White House rule limits staffers' previous lobbying activities, exceptions were made for at least two senior administration officials.

So he is stopping torture, but might keep the option open for high-vaue targets....which is who we were 'torturing' in the first place.He is stopping all former lobbyist from influencing his administration at lower levels, but he is okay with a couple in the upper level.Anyone think the headlines for the story would have been different if McCain would have been elected here?Besides changing to McCain makes a break from Bush?

[brvheart]

I'm sure some of you have heard about Obama calling out Rush Limbaugh... here is his response.According to an account in the New York Post, President Barack Obama yesterday told Republican leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." With George W. Bush now off the stage, it may be that Obama and some of his fellow Democrats view Limbaugh, and not John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, or any other elected official, as the true leader of the Republican opposition. This morning I asked Rush for his thoughts on all this, and here is his response: There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this. Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting: "If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town." To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle. Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle. One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

[Nimue1995]

brvheart, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 9:21 PM, said:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Lol Rush is just unhappy that one of his favorite techniques is coming back to bite him in the butt.

[CaneBrain]

brvheart, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 8:21 PM, said:

Blah blah Rush Limbaugh pretending like he never attacks anyone blah blah blah

Rush recently admitted to openly rooting against Obama and therefore against America (not very patriotic). I figured the GOP would have turned on him by now. He hates America and wishes for the next 4 years to be bad. Thats unAmerican in my book.on a more serious note.....you could make a great argument that Limbaugh is the current figurehead (and most important "member") of the GOP. The Bush family is off the scene. Every GOP candidate for President had their star diminished. McCain got trounced by Obama. The rest of them lost to a guy in the primary who everyone thought had missed his window and was left for dead early in the race. There is a vacuum at the top of the Republican party right now. I think Obama is better off pretending Rush does not exist but thats me.

[strategy's_touch]

I have never heard rush in anything but a one-sided discussion format where the other person's mic is cut. if you ever listen to the guy, you'd know that he does on occasion talk a lot of shit on the current GOP. he isn't a serious threat to anyone... he's just one of many self-interested clowns.

[Balloon guy]

CaneBrain, on Saturday, January 24th, 2009, 8:49 PM, said:

Rush recently admitted to openly rooting against Obama and therefore against America (not very patriotic). I figured the GOP would have turned on him by now. He hates America and wishes for the next 4 years to be bad. Thats unAmerican in my book.on a more serious note.....you could make a great argument that Limbaugh is the current figurehead (and most important "member") of the GOP. The Bush family is off the scene. Every GOP candidate for President had their star diminished. McCain got trounced by Obama. The rest of them lost to a guy in the primary who everyone thought had missed his window and was left for dead early in the race. There is a vacuum at the top of the Republican party right now. I think Obama is better off pretending Rush does not exist but thats me.

I agree with both points you make here.butI have listened to Rush for close to 20 years.I am always amazed at how badly people misjudge him and his show.He talks 15 hours a week every week and people pick one thing said in 1 minutes and try to pidgeon hole him into that one position.What he said was that if Obama carries through with his stated goals and plans, he hopes he fails, because those stated goals and plans would be bad for this country.He is really just using the exact same technique used by the left when they said they support the troops, but not the war.If Obama had said he wanted to destroy the ozone, everyone would be fine hoping for him to fail, in Rush's eyes, his plans are dangerous and would position this country in a downward spiral that would hurt us for decades.Funny thing is that most people upset about Rush saying this, were fine with the democrats saying this about Bush for 8 years.There;s a reason the man makes $45,000 an hour

[Zealous Donkey]

Balloon guy, on Sunday, January 25th, 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

I agree with both points you make here.butI have listened to Rush for close to 20 years.I am always amazed at how badly people misjudge him and his show.He talks 15 hours a week every week and people pick one thing said in 1 minutes and try to pidgeon hole him into that one position.What he said was that if Obama carries through with his stated goals and plans, he hopes he fails, because those stated goals and plans would be bad for this country.He is really just using the exact same technique used by the left when they said they support the troops, but not the war.If Obama had said he wanted to destroy the ozone, everyone would be fine hoping for him to fail, in Rush's eyes, his plans are dangerous and would position this country in a downward spiral that would hurt us for decades.Funny thing is that most people upset about Rush saying this, were fine with the democrats saying this about Bush for 8 years.There;s a reason the man makes $45,000 an hour

This is a very good point. I have read upward of 40 posts berating Limbaugh on FCP and a couple of other sites. NOT ONE accurately portrayed what Limbaugh was saying. I imagine the vast majority didn't hear any of what he said anyway but are just parroting from their usual sources. I don't always agree with Rush and think the way he makes some of his points are silly, but the way this guy has been demonized is ridiculous. This has been done by people similar to the ones commenting on this forum. People who don't even listen to the show take something they hear from MoveOn.org which completely and intentionally misrepresent something he said and twist it around to make it as politically incorrect as possible. They then call him a hatemonger because of a false image they work night and day to create. One more point to you that bitch and moan about our current politicians. It is because of this kind of BS that politicians behave the way they do. They don't concern themselves with the truth because they know you won't concern yourself with the truth. They simply play to your emotions and do as they please. They know they can get away with anything because they know no matter how bad they screw things up they will have a demon and a story to march out for you to burn at the stake. (see Barney Frank) I like that the OP is trying to take a logical and objective look at the new administration but I wonder why so much of the obvious negative has been left out, it seems he is being a little over optimistic IMO.

[Balloon guy]

Reminds me of the last time Harry Reed and the democrats tried to censor Rush by writing a letter and sending it to the CEO of Clear Channel asking for Rush to be silenced. 40 Other democrats signed the letter, making it the first time in American history that the representatives of the government tried to forcibly silence a critic of theirs through intimidation.

Quote

Over the last 20 years, I've been called a chicken hawk. I have been accused of being blindly supportive of the military. Now all of a sudden I hate the military! All of a sudden I'm critical of soldiers who are critical of the war, which I have never done. I don't want to go through it, but you all know it. It leads to Harry Reid writing a letter and getting 40 senators to cosign it, sent to the corporate partner -- the CEO of the corporate partner of mine -- Clear Channel, asking him to essentially censure me by making me apologize. Well, I have the letter, and we're going to auction it off on eBay. All the proceeds, every dollar raised, goes to Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. The expenses for this are going to be paid by the seller. That's us. Every dollar raised, however much it ends up being is going to go to Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. And I would like to issue this challenge to Senator Reid and the 41 senators who signed his letter. You say you support the military. You say you're big, and you think it's patriotic, and that I was unpatriotic. Well, I would like for each of you, Senator Reid, and the 40 Senators who signed, to match whatever the winning bid is. Show us your support for the US military by all 41 of you pro-military people, Democrats in the Senate, match whatever the winning bid is and send that amount to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.

The letter sold for $2.2 millionRush matched it and donated $4.4 million to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.Harry Reid went to his home in Searchlight and cried

[brvheart]

Balloon guy, on Sunday, January 25th, 2009, 1:24 PM, said:

Reminds me of the last time Harry Reed and the democrats tried to censor Rush by writing a letter and sending it to the CEO of Clear Channel asking for Rush to be silenced. 40 Other democrats signed the letter, making it the first time in American history that the representatives of the government tried to forcibly silence a critic of theirs through intimidation.The letter sold for $2.2 millionRush matched it and donated $4.4 million to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.Harry Reid went to his home in Searchlight and cried

Rush is such an asshole.

[Balloon guy]

Rush's reply to Byron YorkeThere are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

[akoff]

Balloon guy, on Sunday, January 25th, 2009, 12:24 PM, said:

Reminds me of the last time Harry Reed and the democrats tried to censor Rush by writing a letter and sending it to the CEO of Clear Channel asking for Rush to be silenced. 40 Other democrats signed the letter, making it the first time in American history that the representatives of the government tried to forcibly silence a critic of theirs through intimidation.The letter sold for $2.2 millionRush matched it and donated $4.4 million to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.Harry Reid went to his home in Searchlight and cried

Rush = the nuts