Did Hugo miss a payment?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
not have specifically admitted his criticisms are inline with Chavez's
Exactly. Your assertion is false. Anything else is you making assumptions.
Red Stateler wrote:
I'm not referring to torture, but their desire to have terrorists face trial rather than remain POW's
I don't see why trials are a problem. It would not be right to keep people in prison for 20 years without some sort of determination for why. So, let me rephrase: Bizarre juxtaposition. If we extend the right to a trial to prisoners, we can't criticize a foreign leader for calling Bush the devil?
Red Stateler wrote:
It's well established that there isn't and has never been torture at guantanamo.
I think not: US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo [^]
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
Exactly. Your assertion is false. Anything else is you making assumptions.
Ummmm...No. As Rangler said, only he can make the statements that Chavez did. And he has made similar statements in the past. My assertion twofold...That the Democratic leadership admitted their statements were inline with Chavez and that they are entitled to make such vitriolic remarks, but Chavez is not. The first part is open to interpretation, the second part is not.
dennisd45 wrote:
Bizarre juxtaposition. If we extend the right to a trial to prisoners, we can't criticize a foreign leader for calling Bush the devil?
The criticism of Chavez is not the point. It's the remark that Chavez is not entitled to make such remarks. In other words, Rangler believes that Chavez does not have 1st amendment protections (even though he is pretty innocuous at this point) but he does believe that violent and dangerous terrorists do have constitutional rights. That is a specifically anti-American/ pro-Democrat stance.
dennisd45 wrote:
I think not: US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo [^]
That report turned out to be false and the Red Cross has even stated that no torture has gone on there. Of course, if you define "torture" as "being scared of dogs" or "indefinite detention" or "not provided with low-fat Stabucks mochas", then yes...They obviously were tortured.
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Exactly. Your assertion is false. Anything else is you making assumptions.
Ummmm...No. As Rangler said, only he can make the statements that Chavez did. And he has made similar statements in the past. My assertion twofold...That the Democratic leadership admitted their statements were inline with Chavez and that they are entitled to make such vitriolic remarks, but Chavez is not. The first part is open to interpretation, the second part is not.
dennisd45 wrote:
Bizarre juxtaposition. If we extend the right to a trial to prisoners, we can't criticize a foreign leader for calling Bush the devil?
The criticism of Chavez is not the point. It's the remark that Chavez is not entitled to make such remarks. In other words, Rangler believes that Chavez does not have 1st amendment protections (even though he is pretty innocuous at this point) but he does believe that violent and dangerous terrorists do have constitutional rights. That is a specifically anti-American/ pro-Democrat stance.
dennisd45 wrote:
I think not: US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo [^]
That report turned out to be false and the Red Cross has even stated that no torture has gone on there. Of course, if you define "torture" as "being scared of dogs" or "indefinite detention" or "not provided with low-fat Stabucks mochas", then yes...They obviously were tortured.
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).
Red Stateler wrote:
The first part is open to interpretation
As I have been saying. You are wrong.
Red Stateler wrote:
but Chavez is not{entitled]
I would have to agree. As a guest he is not entitled. And what does this have to do with Constitutional rights?
Red Stateler wrote:
Chavez is not entitled to make such remarks. In other words, Rangler believes that Chavez does not have 1st amendment protections
Everything after "in other words" is wrong. Saying one is not entitled to make the remarks is not equivalent to saying there is not 1st amendment protection to make them anyway.
Red Stateler wrote:
but he does believe that violent and dangerous terrorists do have constitutional rights.
US citizens, even " violent and dangerous terrorists", do have constitutional rights. Foreign nationals do have protections under the Geneva Convention and US military rules. Maybe even constitutional rights, I am unfamiliar with the law on this.
Red Stateler wrote:
That is a specifically anti-American/ pro-Democrat stance.
Remaining true to American ideals under times of stress is anti-American. Another bizarre statement.
Red Stateler wrote:
Red Cross has even stated that no torture has gone on there.
Untrue. Found several articles where the Red Cross described abuses there as torture.
Red Stateler wrote:
Of course, if you define "torture" as "being scared of dogs" or "indefinite detention" or "not provided with low-fat Stabucks mochas",
If you define torture only as the rack, drawing and quartering, and flaying alive, then yes, there was no torture.:rolleyes:
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The first part is open to interpretation
As I have been saying. You are wrong.
Red Stateler wrote:
but Chavez is not{entitled]
I would have to agree. As a guest he is not entitled. And what does this have to do with Constitutional rights?
Red Stateler wrote:
Chavez is not entitled to make such remarks. In other words, Rangler believes that Chavez does not have 1st amendment protections
Everything after "in other words" is wrong. Saying one is not entitled to make the remarks is not equivalent to saying there is not 1st amendment protection to make them anyway.
Red Stateler wrote:
but he does believe that violent and dangerous terrorists do have constitutional rights.
US citizens, even " violent and dangerous terrorists", do have constitutional rights. Foreign nationals do have protections under the Geneva Convention and US military rules. Maybe even constitutional rights, I am unfamiliar with the law on this.
Red Stateler wrote:
That is a specifically anti-American/ pro-Democrat stance.
Remaining true to American ideals under times of stress is anti-American. Another bizarre statement.
Red Stateler wrote:
Red Cross has even stated that no torture has gone on there.
Untrue. Found several articles where the Red Cross described abuses there as torture.
Red Stateler wrote:
Of course, if you define "torture" as "being scared of dogs" or "indefinite detention" or "not provided with low-fat Stabucks mochas",
If you define torture only as the rack, drawing and quartering, and flaying alive, then yes, there was no torture.:rolleyes:
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
It's funny to see your defense of the indefensible turn to such pure rubbish after just a few posts. I was going to respond to this, but I honestly couldn't figure out where to begin. It was that flawed.
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).
-
It's funny to see your defense of the indefensible turn to such pure rubbish after just a few posts. I was going to respond to this, but I honestly couldn't figure out where to begin. It was that flawed.
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).
Get real. You ascribe beliefs to people simple because that is what you want to believe of them. "Democrats are the same as Chavez", blah, blah, blah. I disagree with you and say so clearly. You tried to baffle me with bullsh*t and failed.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
Get real. You ascribe beliefs to people simple because that is what you want to believe of them. "Democrats are the same as Chavez", blah, blah, blah. I disagree with you and say so clearly. You tried to baffle me with bullsh*t and failed.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
You ascribe beliefs to people simple because that is what you want to believe of them.
Actually it's exactly what I don't want them to believe. And yet, quite astoundingly, they do. Even more astoundingly...you do your best (which isn't much) defend them by reinterpreting what they say so that it seems less...outlandish. But you're ignoring the fact that everyone (here at least) is literate and can see through your nonsense.
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).
-
dennisd45 wrote:
You ascribe beliefs to people simple because that is what you want to believe of them.
Actually it's exactly what I don't want them to believe. And yet, quite astoundingly, they do. Even more astoundingly...you do your best (which isn't much) defend them by reinterpreting what they say so that it seems less...outlandish. But you're ignoring the fact that everyone (here at least) is literate and can see through your nonsense.
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).
-
What is astounding is that you apparently believe your own BS.:rolleyes:
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
What is astounding is that you apparently believe your own BS.
My words are self-evident to those literate enough to understand them.
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).
-
dennisd45 wrote:
What is astounding is that you apparently believe your own BS.
My words are self-evident to those literate enough to understand them.
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).
-
It's not that bad by now. The economy improved a lot since last year. In the beggining of 20th century Argentina had one of the highest standards of living in the world, better than most of Europe and better than any other country in the southern hemisphere. They still have a very good level of education even today. But they've been downhill since after WWII. They're recovering from the big breakdown in 2002, but are still far from their days of glory.
Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
Diego Moita wrote:
But they've been downhill since after WWII.
Why has Argentina gone downhill since WWII?
-
Diego Moita wrote:
But they've been downhill since after WWII.
Why has Argentina gone downhill since WWII?
Their economy was strongly based in exportation of agricultural goods and never became competitive in industrialized goods. In my opinion they never became successfull industrialized mostly because authoritarian governments created to much bureaucracy and taxation. It was the peronismo (a fascist like regime during and after WWII) and the military dictatorship from the 70s.
Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.