Democrat President Approved Torture
-
Your mistake Red as so often is to fail to understand the difference between a Democrat and a democrat. Truman was by all accounts a paranoid neo-faschist. His membership of the Democrat party may indeed bring shame to that party if such a thing were possible but it brings no less to those who label themselves Republican because it is and has been for a long time the same thing, another name for sheep.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Your mistake Red as so often is to fail to understand the difference between a Democrat and a democrat.
I said "Democrat" president...Not "democratic" president. It appears you're the one who can't tell the difference. Truman was appointed by FDR, who contributed more leftist policies to US government than any president before or since. He was the originator of the failed Fair Deal[^]. He certainly advocated many of the policies pushed by the left today. You know what else he did? He approved of the use of torture for national security.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Your mistake Red as so often is to fail to understand the difference between a Democrat and a democrat.
I said "Democrat" president...Not "democratic" president. It appears you're the one who can't tell the difference. Truman was appointed by FDR, who contributed more leftist policies to US government than any president before or since. He was the originator of the failed Fair Deal[^]. He certainly advocated many of the policies pushed by the left today. You know what else he did? He approved of the use of torture for national security.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
You miss the point, why am I not surprised. The point was if you had said Republican the meaning of your statement would not have changed. An attempt to attack your enemy the left by finding a bad guy who was a Democrat is like attempting to attack the whole concept of being Chinese by finding a bad guy and pointing out he's a Manchurian as opposed to a Han. So what? Truman was indeed appointed by FDR, so, Stalin was appointed by Lenin ( For your education Lenin was an idiologically wrong man who honestly believed in his cause and worked himself to death for his people. Stalin a mass murdering sociopath who believed in nothing (Yes there is good an bad on the left :omg: ) ) FDR of course originated the New Deal, despite having to fight off a coup attempt from right-wing traitors, he succeeded in saving the US economy, winning the largest war in history and building schools and dams many still in use when Ronald Reagan was loosing his marbles. Some failure. If FDR approved torture I would be surpised indeed, if Truman did it would only confirm my suspiscions about a man who created the CIA, placed his allies outside the law and created the Russian-Doll security clearance system which enables the existance of unacknowledged black programmes and the doings of the likes of Colonel North even to this day. You can certainly accuse FDR of being a socialist, many have, and a bad judge of character, most great men are, but accusing him of failure just makes you look stupid.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Your mistake Red as so often is to fail to understand the difference between a Democrat and a democrat. Truman was by all accounts a paranoid neo-faschist. His membership of the Democrat party may indeed bring shame to that party if such a thing were possible but it brings no less to those who label themselves Republican because it is and has been for a long time the same thing, another name for sheep.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Your mistake Red as so often is to fail to understand the difference between a Democrat and a democrat.
No, he's "mistake" is to fail to understand. Anything.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
You miss the point, why am I not surprised. The point was if you had said Republican the meaning of your statement would not have changed. An attempt to attack your enemy the left by finding a bad guy who was a Democrat is like attempting to attack the whole concept of being Chinese by finding a bad guy and pointing out he's a Manchurian as opposed to a Han. So what? Truman was indeed appointed by FDR, so, Stalin was appointed by Lenin ( For your education Lenin was an idiologically wrong man who honestly believed in his cause and worked himself to death for his people. Stalin a mass murdering sociopath who believed in nothing (Yes there is good an bad on the left :omg: ) ) FDR of course originated the New Deal, despite having to fight off a coup attempt from right-wing traitors, he succeeded in saving the US economy, winning the largest war in history and building schools and dams many still in use when Ronald Reagan was loosing his marbles. Some failure. If FDR approved torture I would be surpised indeed, if Truman did it would only confirm my suspiscions about a man who created the CIA, placed his allies outside the law and created the Russian-Doll security clearance system which enables the existance of unacknowledged black programmes and the doings of the likes of Colonel North even to this day. You can certainly accuse FDR of being a socialist, many have, and a bad judge of character, most great men are, but accusing him of failure just makes you look stupid.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You miss the point, why am I not surprised.
No, I'm afraid I get your point. I simply don't care about your completely irrelevent, tangential transformation of my original point into some nonsensical neo-"faschist", foil-requiring conspiracy theory. My point, which is sane and does not require aluminum foil in any way, is simply that Truman (who was a liberal Democrat and a darling of the left) approved of torture as a means to secure our nation. You crazy son of a b**ch.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
You miss the point, why am I not surprised. The point was if you had said Republican the meaning of your statement would not have changed. An attempt to attack your enemy the left by finding a bad guy who was a Democrat is like attempting to attack the whole concept of being Chinese by finding a bad guy and pointing out he's a Manchurian as opposed to a Han. So what? Truman was indeed appointed by FDR, so, Stalin was appointed by Lenin ( For your education Lenin was an idiologically wrong man who honestly believed in his cause and worked himself to death for his people. Stalin a mass murdering sociopath who believed in nothing (Yes there is good an bad on the left :omg: ) ) FDR of course originated the New Deal, despite having to fight off a coup attempt from right-wing traitors, he succeeded in saving the US economy, winning the largest war in history and building schools and dams many still in use when Ronald Reagan was loosing his marbles. Some failure. If FDR approved torture I would be surpised indeed, if Truman did it would only confirm my suspiscions about a man who created the CIA, placed his allies outside the law and created the Russian-Doll security clearance system which enables the existance of unacknowledged black programmes and the doings of the likes of Colonel North even to this day. You can certainly accuse FDR of being a socialist, many have, and a bad judge of character, most great men are, but accusing him of failure just makes you look stupid.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
An attempt to attack your enemy the left by finding a bad guy who was a Democrat is like attempting to attack the whole concept of being Chinese by finding a bad guy and pointing out he's a Manchurian as opposed to a Han. So what?
I think the point is that the left does the SAME THING - all the time claiming that they are somehow "better". They're not.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You miss the point, why am I not surprised.
No, I'm afraid I get your point. I simply don't care about your completely irrelevent, tangential transformation of my original point into some nonsensical neo-"faschist", foil-requiring conspiracy theory. My point, which is sane and does not require aluminum foil in any way, is simply that Truman (who was a liberal Democrat and a darling of the left) approved of torture as a means to secure our nation. You crazy son of a b**ch.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
No, Truman was not a liberal democrat, 'liberal Democrat' may have been a meaningful term at the time but wasn't true then and certainly doesn't mean the same if anything today.
Red Stateler wrote:
darling of the left
Which left I wonder, the 'left' of people who had no idea what left was, the left of people who associated both left and Truman with FDR, no wonder he was popular, or simply people to the left of you which as we've discussed before is a non functional classification as it can be substituted directly for 'everybody'. The only conspiracy mentioned above is of course the proven one, recently widely reported in the civillised world, as the documents have been declassified, to overthrow FDR. So we've established that a man who pretended to be 'left' because it was popular was really a lying paranoid SOB who had people tortured. Well blow me down with a feather it almost sounds like he must have been involved in a conspiracy as well. Maybe you'd better go and do some actual research and find out :laugh: Of course if had been a lying paranoid SOB who pretended to be 'right' because it was popular and had people tortured you'd probably have been too busy campaigning for him to post. The difference being?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
An attempt to attack your enemy the left by finding a bad guy who was a Democrat is like attempting to attack the whole concept of being Chinese by finding a bad guy and pointing out he's a Manchurian as opposed to a Han. So what?
I think the point is that the left does the SAME THING - all the time claiming that they are somehow "better". They're not.
If that had been the point I might have agreed at least as far it goes. The remaining problem is the persistent failure to recognise that the 'Democrat left' is simply other face of the 'Republican right'. Neither is in fact left in any meaningful way, neither has been for a long time either democratic or republican let alone right. It's a dumb show for the likes of Red to stop them having any meaning involvement in their own government, which in Red's case is probably a good thing but in general is not.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
No, Truman was not a liberal democrat, 'liberal Democrat' may have been a meaningful term at the time but wasn't true then and certainly doesn't mean the same if anything today.
Red Stateler wrote:
darling of the left
Which left I wonder, the 'left' of people who had no idea what left was, the left of people who associated both left and Truman with FDR, no wonder he was popular, or simply people to the left of you which as we've discussed before is a non functional classification as it can be substituted directly for 'everybody'. The only conspiracy mentioned above is of course the proven one, recently widely reported in the civillised world, as the documents have been declassified, to overthrow FDR. So we've established that a man who pretended to be 'left' because it was popular was really a lying paranoid SOB who had people tortured. Well blow me down with a feather it almost sounds like he must have been involved in a conspiracy as well. Maybe you'd better go and do some actual research and find out :laugh: Of course if had been a lying paranoid SOB who pretended to be 'right' because it was popular and had people tortured you'd probably have been too busy campaigning for him to post. The difference being?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
blah blah blah blah blah foil blah blah blah blah blah fascist blah blah blah blah blah illuminati blah blah blah blah blah federal reserve blah blah blah blah blah secret society blah blah blah blah blah blah microchips blah blah blah blah satellites blah blah blah blah blah blah puppy dogs blah blah blah blah blah Halliburton blah blah blah blah Blackwater blah blah blah blah blah.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
An attempt to attack your enemy the left by finding a bad guy who was a Democrat is like attempting to attack the whole concept of being Chinese by finding a bad guy and pointing out he's a Manchurian as opposed to a Han. So what?
I think the point is that the left does the SAME THING - all the time claiming that they are somehow "better". They're not.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I think the point is that the left does the SAME THING - all the time claiming that they are somehow "better". They're not.
Pretty much my point. Although it was more along the lines of "the left used to do the same thing" when, economically misguided as they were, they were not traitors.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You miss the point, why am I not surprised.
No, I'm afraid I get your point. I simply don't care about your completely irrelevent, tangential transformation of my original point into some nonsensical neo-"faschist", foil-requiring conspiracy theory. My point, which is sane and does not require aluminum foil in any way, is simply that Truman (who was a liberal Democrat and a darling of the left) approved of torture as a means to secure our nation. You crazy son of a b**ch.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
No, I'm afraid I get your point. I simply don't care about your completely irrelevent, tangential transformation of my original point into some nonsensical neo-"faschist", foil-requiring conspiracy theory. My point, which is sane and does not require aluminum foil in any way, is simply that Truman (who was a liberal Democrat and a darling of the left) approved of torture as a means to secure our nation. You crazy son of a b**ch.
:laugh:
-
If that had been the point I might have agreed at least as far it goes. The remaining problem is the persistent failure to recognise that the 'Democrat left' is simply other face of the 'Republican right'. Neither is in fact left in any meaningful way, neither has been for a long time either democratic or republican let alone right. It's a dumb show for the likes of Red to stop them having any meaning involvement in their own government, which in Red's case is probably a good thing but in general is not.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
he remaining problem is the persistent failure to recognise that the 'Democrat left' is simply other face of the 'Republican right'. Neither is in fact left in any meaningful way, neither has been for a long time either democratic or republican let alone right.
Except Red's initial post doesn't contain the word "left". :doh:
-
In one of the longest-held secrets of the Cold War, the U.S. Army explored the
potential for using radioactive poisons to assassinate "important individuals" such as
military or civilian leaders, according to newly declassified documents obtained by The
Associated Press.
...
Military historians who have researched the broader radiological warfare program said
in interviews that they had never before seen evidence that it included pursuit of an
assassination weapon. Targeting public figures in such attacks is not unheard of; just
last year an unknown assailant used a tiny amount of radioactive polonium-210 to kill
Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko in London.Harry Truman, a Democrat, was president throughout the existence of this program. Any sensible person who saw Alexander Litvinenko's slow and arduous death play out in the media would have to agree that death by radioactive poison is certainly a torturous way to die.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
There was a story some months back where an ex-KGB agent who fled to the UK was (mysteriously)poisoned with a radioactive weapon that not only killed him, but was absorbed and broken down rapidly enough to prevent thorough testing. I think the commies beat us to it...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
he remaining problem is the persistent failure to recognise that the 'Democrat left' is simply other face of the 'Republican right'. Neither is in fact left in any meaningful way, neither has been for a long time either democratic or republican let alone right.
Except Red's initial post doesn't contain the word "left". :doh:
Hmm, his post below does and you know as well as I do that when Red lashes out at the 'Democrat' his intended target is his very own Great White Whale, 'The Left'. The first difficulty is always that Red's 'Left' is of course a paranoid fantasy and the second pointed out here is that today's 'Democrat' is in no way related to 1940's 'Democrat' of which Truman was a clear betrayal anyway, leaving Red as ever without a point, leg to stand on or answer other than childness nonsense. His vague attempts at something political have recently become so weak I might ignore them entirely if I had anything more interesting going on at the moment than installing XP on 'repaired' Dell.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
There was a story some months back where an ex-KGB agent who fled to the UK was (mysteriously)poisoned with a radioactive weapon that not only killed him, but was absorbed and broken down rapidly enough to prevent thorough testing. I think the commies beat us to it...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
Yeah, that was Alexander Litvinenko I mentioned above.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Hmm, his post below does and you know as well as I do that when Red lashes out at the 'Democrat' his intended target is his very own Great White Whale, 'The Left'. The first difficulty is always that Red's 'Left' is of course a paranoid fantasy and the second pointed out here is that today's 'Democrat' is in no way related to 1940's 'Democrat' of which Truman was a clear betrayal anyway, leaving Red as ever without a point, leg to stand on or answer other than childness nonsense. His vague attempts at something political have recently become so weak I might ignore them entirely if I had anything more interesting going on at the moment than installing XP on 'repaired' Dell.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I might ignore them entirely
Don't tease me!
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
In one of the longest-held secrets of the Cold War, the U.S. Army explored the
potential for using radioactive poisons to assassinate "important individuals" such as
military or civilian leaders, according to newly declassified documents obtained by The
Associated Press.
...
Military historians who have researched the broader radiological warfare program said
in interviews that they had never before seen evidence that it included pursuit of an
assassination weapon. Targeting public figures in such attacks is not unheard of; just
last year an unknown assailant used a tiny amount of radioactive polonium-210 to kill
Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko in London.Harry Truman, a Democrat, was president throughout the existence of this program. Any sensible person who saw Alexander Litvinenko's slow and arduous death play out in the media would have to agree that death by radioactive poison is certainly a torturous way to die.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
So your trying to prove that there is very little, if any, difference between a Democrat and a Republican? That is counter to your normal stance. Are you getting confused in your old age?
Red Stateler wrote:
Any sensible person who saw Alexander Litvinenko's slow and arduous death play out in the media would have to agree that death by radioactive poison is certainly a torturous way to die.
Yes that would be. Even so, your attempt to twist assassination techniques into a comparison of torture techniques has failed miserably since most people have a level of intelligence greater than a monkey.
-
So your trying to prove that there is very little, if any, difference between a Democrat and a Republican? That is counter to your normal stance. Are you getting confused in your old age?
Red Stateler wrote:
Any sensible person who saw Alexander Litvinenko's slow and arduous death play out in the media would have to agree that death by radioactive poison is certainly a torturous way to die.
Yes that would be. Even so, your attempt to twist assassination techniques into a comparison of torture techniques has failed miserably since most people have a level of intelligence greater than a monkey.
led mike wrote:
So your trying to prove that there is very little, if any, difference between a Democrat and a Republican? That is counter to your normal stance. Are you getting confused in your old age?
Well I think there was far less difference in the past in regards to national security. FDR, Truman and Kennedy were all liberal Democrats, but they also delivered on national security. Truman apparently secretly approved of torture in order to secure out nation. That is in stark contrast of Democrats today, who are using the issue as a way to undermine national security (but in all probability will reverse that stance once they regain power).
led mike wrote:
Yes that would be. Even so, your attempt to twist assassination techniques into a comparison of torture techniques has failed miserably since most people have a level of intelligence greater than a monkey.
Mere Poison[^] would be a mere "assassination technique". Alexander Litvinenko's death, however, was more than a simple assassination and resulted in a long, drawn out and painful death by design. Inflicting pain for pain's sake (especially for an assassination) most certainly falls under the deinition of torture[^].
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
In one of the longest-held secrets of the Cold War, the U.S. Army explored the
potential for using radioactive poisons to assassinate "important individuals" such as
military or civilian leaders, according to newly declassified documents obtained by The
Associated Press.
...
Military historians who have researched the broader radiological warfare program said
in interviews that they had never before seen evidence that it included pursuit of an
assassination weapon. Targeting public figures in such attacks is not unheard of; just
last year an unknown assailant used a tiny amount of radioactive polonium-210 to kill
Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko in London.Harry Truman, a Democrat, was president throughout the existence of this program. Any sensible person who saw Alexander Litvinenko's slow and arduous death play out in the media would have to agree that death by radioactive poison is certainly a torturous way to die.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Well, then... it must be ok. I guess we shouldn't attempt to advance beyond our past. Something like torture isn't something that a civilized world should ban, but embrace? Hmmm... interesting platform. What are you arguing now? Two wrongs make a right?
This statement was never false.
-
Well, then... it must be ok. I guess we shouldn't attempt to advance beyond our past. Something like torture isn't something that a civilized world should ban, but embrace? Hmmm... interesting platform. What are you arguing now? Two wrongs make a right?
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
What are you arguing now?
That necessity is the mother of invention.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
In one of the longest-held secrets of the Cold War, the U.S. Army explored the
potential for using radioactive poisons to assassinate "important individuals" such as
military or civilian leaders, according to newly declassified documents obtained by The
Associated Press.
...
Military historians who have researched the broader radiological warfare program said
in interviews that they had never before seen evidence that it included pursuit of an
assassination weapon. Targeting public figures in such attacks is not unheard of; just
last year an unknown assailant used a tiny amount of radioactive polonium-210 to kill
Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko in London.Harry Truman, a Democrat, was president throughout the existence of this program. Any sensible person who saw Alexander Litvinenko's slow and arduous death play out in the media would have to agree that death by radioactive poison is certainly a torturous way to die.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Harry Truman, a Democrat, was president throughout the existence of this program. Any sensible person who saw Alexander Litvinenko's slow and arduous death play out in the media would have to agree that death by radioactive poison is certainly a torturous way to die.
In your posts on this very forum, you regularly torture logic to the point where I have actually heard it, this abstract concept, scream out in agony, pleading for CSS, Kyle, or Matthew (sorry Matthew, I really do think you're a nice guy) to come along and deal it their usual death blow, putting it out of its misery. We also know that Stan would happily torture you, me, nuns, orphans, puppies, and his own grandmother if any of that group tried to get the government to pay for his annual check-up. Any sensible, sane, rational, clear-thinking, moral, ethical, and upstanding citizen would certainly have to agree that this clearly makes it patently obvious that Rightists condone torture.