Further small victories
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
he had the FBI spying on suspected nazi sympathizers.
That's only a partial answer. It wasn't essential to our victory and you haven't explained why he could not have gotten enabling legislation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And lets not forget the internment of the Japanese Americans.
Yes, let's not. A shameful moment in our history. But essential to our victory? Absolutely not.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why could they not be altered now to allow for enhanced interrogations?
They could, but they were not. Hence it was illegal to toture.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Is that your only problem?
No. Legal or not, torture is wrong.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If they law said it was ok to torture
Then no one could be prosecuted. See how easy all of this could have been avoided. All we had to do was withdraw from all of the relevant treaties, remove all the obstructing laws from the books, perhaps amend the constitution and then pass all the necessary enabling legislation and - voila - we could be just like the Khmer Rouge. Or we could have simply not tortured.
Stan Shannon wrote:
is what 'coequal' means. That is precisely how the system was intended to function.
Nonsense.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Becuase that is the nature of evil.
But that didn't happen here. Are you telling me that Al-Queda is not evil?
Stan Shannon wrote:
you have no choice but to fight on its terms.
More nonsense. I have yet to hear how we were compelled to torture.
oilFactotum wrote:
I have yet to hear how we were compelled to torture.
We weren't. It was a mistake. A couple of dozen terrorists were scared shitless, they felt real pain and they probably screamed. Bush broke the law, but at worst he'll be pardoned by Obama and become a big hero to the conservatives, making millions of dollars lecturing necon thinktanks. Ditto for anyone else important enough for you to recognize their name. Now we can talk about something worthwhile, like the economy or swine flu, or whether we'll ever get back to the Moon - or is this the only thing you can think about?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
He cares about the results of this just about as much as you would a similar problem in Oz.
He seems to care a great deal more than I care about anything in Oz. Which indicates to me that he is a shining little clue of what this is really all about. None of this has anything to do with respect for any law. This is about forcing the US to conform to international standards and control. It is a means of a wageing a political war on the very essence of American civilization itself. This isn't an effort to get Bush, it is an effort to dismantle the political infrastructure that put him into power in the first place, and to ensure it can never be put back together again. People such as Carson feel threatened by the power of the US being in the hands of those he deems 'social conservatives' and capitalists (ie, the core of American society) and they are as committed to its elimination as we once were to the elimination of communism. Oily is just a useful idiot for their cause. And all of that is why I don't believe they will ultimately be able to control what they are starting. Once this thing has some real momentum behind it, none of them are going to be able to stay ahead of it. It will take on a life of its on that will be beyond anyone's control. The course of action they have committed themselves to is a very big deal historically. It is unprecedented. A watershed moment in human history, and they appear to have absolutely no awareness or concern for that at all. God help us all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Oily is just a useful idiot for their cause.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It will take on a life of its on that will be beyond anyone's control.
My guess is, honestly and not just to argue with you, that it has a life expectancy of a couple of weeks before it goes on the back burner. Remember when there were going to be all kinds of investigations into the firing of the US Attorneys? Once it threatened to expose that some Senators had been involved, the investigation went nowhere, real fast. Once I saw the deer-in-the-headlights-eyes of Pelosi when she was asked what she knew and when, I decided that this was a non-issue. I have been wrong before, of course, but I just don't think this has legs.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
Obama has said that CIA agents who relied on and acted in accordance with DOJ advice will not be prosecuted
As has been pointed out by many people, he has no right to decide that. Having accused people of committing a crime, he cannot excuse them because their motives were pure. He can, of course, pardon them for any and or all crimes, but the screams of outrage from Oily who would support that law would echo even in Australia.
John Carson wrote:
Republican deadheads who are so sure of the efficacy of information acquired through torture, and who are willing to torture people to get them to say what they want, are a danger to the nation, and have already proved themselves to be so.
And the Democratic deadheads like Nancy Pelosi as well, I presume?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
As has been pointed out by many people, he has no right to decide that.
I was responding to the statement: "Having established that Obama will not resist witch hunts or show trials...". The issue under discussion was not Obama's rights but his "resistance".
Oakman wrote:
And the Democratic deadheads like Nancy Pelosi as well, I presume?
There were certainly some Democratic deadheads but I have my doubts that Nancy Pelosi was among them in spite of the repeated claims to that effect. Pelosi has denied being briefed on any actual abusive treatments. The fact that she has been such a consistent voice pushing for investigations and possible prosecutions adds some credibility to her denial. Such investigations would be potentially very damaging to her if the accusations against her are correct.
John Carson
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I have yet to hear how we were compelled to torture.
We weren't. It was a mistake. A couple of dozen terrorists were scared shitless, they felt real pain and they probably screamed. Bush broke the law, but at worst he'll be pardoned by Obama and become a big hero to the conservatives, making millions of dollars lecturing necon thinktanks. Ditto for anyone else important enough for you to recognize their name. Now we can talk about something worthwhile, like the economy or swine flu, or whether we'll ever get back to the Moon - or is this the only thing you can think about?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
It was a mistake.
Yes it was. It was also a willful act of criminality.
Oakman wrote:
A couple of dozen terrorists were scared shitless,
and disappeared and driven insane and murdered.
Oakman wrote:
but at worst he'll be pardoned by Obama
That would be the worst. Best of all would be a full investigation followed by any necessary prosecutions.
Oakman wrote:
Now we can talk about something worthwhile
It's too bad you think that the rule of law is not worthwhile - not unlike Stan. X|
-
John Carson wrote:
Who said anything about a witchhunt. Let the law take its course.
Well, a great number of liberals talked about witchhunts back in the fifties when the House of Representatives decided to find out exactly who in government was responsible for providing state secrets to Russia and who had been members of the Communist party, i.e. associating with foreign agents dedicated to bringing down the U.S. It seems that (back then, though apparently not today) the idea that much of the State Department, the FDR/Truman administrations, and the Pentagon was being painted as criminals and traitors in a blind rush to assign (and avoid) guilt offended liberals (like Edward R. Murrow) who were, of course, also attempting to cover their ass. But I am sure you'll explain to me why it is different when Democrats and Liberals are the ones under fire than when it's Republicans and Conservatives. Just so Oily doesn't start pissing in his pants about me supporting Joe McCarthy, I despised what happened to good men and true under his reign of terror. Bringing him low was one of the best things CBS ever did. But Joe Mccarthy did not justify the 1975 Church hearings that resulted in the death of CIA agents and was still hobbling the CIA's intelligence-gathering in 2001. Nor does it justify the screams of bloodthirsty joy emanating from the far left these days.
John Carson wrote:
Let the law take its course
That's what they said in Salem just before they hung eleven witches and crushed another man under rocks because he would neither deny nor confess his "crimes."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
But I am sure you'll explain to me why it is different when Democrats and Liberals are the ones under fire than when it's Republicans and Conservatives.
If the methods are the same in both cases, then there is no difference. However, you are leaping to conclusions about what is going to happen and I very much doubt that you will be proved correct. In the 1970s, Nixon was forced from office and some people went to jail because there were enough people in Congress (including some Republicans) who cared enough about the law to make it happen. The sad thing about the past 8 years is that Congress failed to hold Bush accountable and it is that failure that has set up the current situation in which any attempts at a belated accountability are being presented as some sort of victor's justice.
Oakman wrote:
That's what they said in Salem just before they hung eleven witches and crushed another man under rocks because he would neither deny nor confess his "crimes."
It is supremely ironic that those complaining about "witchhunts" do so in opposing prosecution of those who promoted torture. As is alluded to by your statement, torture was at the heart of previous witchhunts, going back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition. The innocent were routinely convicted in witchhunts. Torture, you see, provides very unreliable evidence.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
There was a time when Republicans were against torture too.
We still are.
John Carson wrote:
I think people need to think carefully about whether they want the US to walk away from positions it has held for a very long time.
No one is walking away from anything. But it is simply rationale to consider that there might be a connection between the laws as they exist and the possibility that those laws make us unnecessarily vulnerable to certain kinds of threats. The rational response to all this would be to simply re-write the law so that it only applies to nations which have actually signed on to the concept. Stateless terrorist entities and those who serve them should not be considered protected by such agreements between civilized societies.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We still are.
Back in the fold, Stan? I thought you were the one who said the Republicans had abandoned everything you held sacred? :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Rob Graham wrote:
think that has already happened.
Or consider the recent incident with the pirates. The reason it took so long for an entire naval task force to deal with one little boat with four pirates is because the entire episode was being micromanaged by Obama's legal advisors. Earlier opportunities to end the situation were missed because people were still checking legal statutes for the appropriate course of action.
Rob Graham wrote:
And all that blood will be as much on the hands of the radical left like oily as on the hands of the terrorists who pull it off.
I agree completely. You cannot purposefully return to a status quo that existed prior to an earlier attack, and then not take repsonsibility for a repeat of that attack. Obama's primary responsibility is to provide for the physical security of this nation, and not to ensure we are in conformance with every possible nuance of every single international law. Dead Americans are a much more profound violation of the constitution than is roughing up the leadership of those responsible for the deaths.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The reason it took so long for an entire naval task force to deal with one little boat with four pirates is because the entire episode was being micromanaged by Obama's legal advisors. Earlier opportunities to end the situation were missed because people were still checking legal statutes for the appropriate course of action.
You're just pissed it came off successfully. If they'd rushed in and bungled it, you'd have been chortling gleefully about it.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
oilFactotum wrote:
This is great news for those of us who believe in the rule of law and that our politcal elites should not be considered above the law.
So, how did you feel about Clinton lying under oath about blow jobs?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
AS far as I know, a blow job is not considered a torture.
-
AS far as I know, a blow job is not considered a torture.
:thumbsup::thumbsup: gotta hand it to you, one of the best comments to date.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Oakman wrote:
But I am sure you'll explain to me why it is different when Democrats and Liberals are the ones under fire than when it's Republicans and Conservatives.
If the methods are the same in both cases, then there is no difference. However, you are leaping to conclusions about what is going to happen and I very much doubt that you will be proved correct. In the 1970s, Nixon was forced from office and some people went to jail because there were enough people in Congress (including some Republicans) who cared enough about the law to make it happen. The sad thing about the past 8 years is that Congress failed to hold Bush accountable and it is that failure that has set up the current situation in which any attempts at a belated accountability are being presented as some sort of victor's justice.
Oakman wrote:
That's what they said in Salem just before they hung eleven witches and crushed another man under rocks because he would neither deny nor confess his "crimes."
It is supremely ironic that those complaining about "witchhunts" do so in opposing prosecution of those who promoted torture. As is alluded to by your statement, torture was at the heart of previous witchhunts, going back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition. The innocent were routinely convicted in witchhunts. Torture, you see, provides very unreliable evidence.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
In the 1970s, Nixon was forced from office and some people went to jail because there were enough people in Congress (including some Republicans) who cared enough about the law to make it happen.
I am surprised by the high-minded motives ascribed by you and Oily to people who are obviously politically motivated. Nixon was savaged in part for his arrogant stupidity and in part because he was a Republican. Clinton was savaged in part for his arrogant stupidity and in part because he was a Democrat. In neither case was the law of paramount importance to those attempting to bring down the presidency.
John Carson wrote:
It is supremely ironic that those complaining about "witchhunts" do so in opposing prosecution of those who promoted torture.
Granted the irony - does that make what happened in the 50's or the mid 70's any less reprehensible? Is the irony worth more than a rueful smile before we move on to talk of serious issues? By the way. I am not defending anyone who committed or authorised torture. Just as Stan oftime says that I must either agree with him or admit I am a commie, you seem to be telling me that because I do not think this is an issue worth too much agonizing over, I am as one with Torquemada. My world is just not that black and white.
John Carson wrote:
Torture, you see, provides very unreliable evidence.
So does the hearsay that is being repeated by the left and the right.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Rob Graham wrote:
think that has already happened.
Or consider the recent incident with the pirates. The reason it took so long for an entire naval task force to deal with one little boat with four pirates is because the entire episode was being micromanaged by Obama's legal advisors. Earlier opportunities to end the situation were missed because people were still checking legal statutes for the appropriate course of action.
Rob Graham wrote:
And all that blood will be as much on the hands of the radical left like oily as on the hands of the terrorists who pull it off.
I agree completely. You cannot purposefully return to a status quo that existed prior to an earlier attack, and then not take repsonsibility for a repeat of that attack. Obama's primary responsibility is to provide for the physical security of this nation, and not to ensure we are in conformance with every possible nuance of every single international law. Dead Americans are a much more profound violation of the constitution than is roughing up the leadership of those responsible for the deaths.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The reason it took so long for an entire naval task force to deal with one little boat with four pirates is because the entire episode was being micromanaged by Obama's legal advisors.
It took as long as it took because the Seals did it right. Making up things about meetings you weren't there to see and about which there has been no credible reporting, to make a point hurts your case.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
f you succeed in your goals you will have effectively rendered this nation impotent against even the most innocuous sort of threat.
I think that has already happened. Having established that Obama will not resist witch hunts or show trials, there is at this point, not one single employee of the CIA, DIA, or FBI that would risk possible retribution for anything even suggestive of risk of future (and retroactive) illegality. Already they have established that civil servants and appointees cannot rely on the statements of the justice department in determining the boundaries. I predict another successful attack on US soil within the next two years, and one more devastating than 911. And all that blood will be as much on the hands of the radical left like oily as on the hands of the terrorists who pull it off.
Rob Graham wrote:
I predict another successful attack on US soil within the next two years, and one more devastating than 911.
Which is when the Chinese move in to render humanitarian aid.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
In the 1970s, Nixon was forced from office and some people went to jail because there were enough people in Congress (including some Republicans) who cared enough about the law to make it happen.
I am surprised by the high-minded motives ascribed by you and Oily to people who are obviously politically motivated. Nixon was savaged in part for his arrogant stupidity and in part because he was a Republican. Clinton was savaged in part for his arrogant stupidity and in part because he was a Democrat. In neither case was the law of paramount importance to those attempting to bring down the presidency.
John Carson wrote:
It is supremely ironic that those complaining about "witchhunts" do so in opposing prosecution of those who promoted torture.
Granted the irony - does that make what happened in the 50's or the mid 70's any less reprehensible? Is the irony worth more than a rueful smile before we move on to talk of serious issues? By the way. I am not defending anyone who committed or authorised torture. Just as Stan oftime says that I must either agree with him or admit I am a commie, you seem to be telling me that because I do not think this is an issue worth too much agonizing over, I am as one with Torquemada. My world is just not that black and white.
John Carson wrote:
Torture, you see, provides very unreliable evidence.
So does the hearsay that is being repeated by the left and the right.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I am surprised by the high-minded motives ascribed by you and Oily to people who are obviously politically motivated. Nixon was savaged in part for his arrogant stupidity and in part because he was a Republican. Clinton was savaged in part for his arrogant stupidity and in part because he was a Democrat. In neither case was the law of paramount importance to those attempting to bring down the presidency.
One takes for granted a large measure of partisan motivation. Nixon resigned when he decided that he had lost enough support among Republicans to lose his impeachment trial. Of course, even when people care about a principle, they don't entirely disregard the politics. It is easier to attack a wounded politician on a matter of principle than to attack one at the height of his popularity.
Oakman wrote:
Granted the irony - does that make what happened in the 50's or the mid 70's any less reprehensible?
If the mid 70s is a reference to Nixon, I don't think it was reprehensible. If it was a reference to the Church committee, then I don't know enough about it to offer a confident opinin.
Oakman wrote:
Is the irony worth more than a rueful smile before we move on to talk of serious issues?
I think the unreliability of evidence gained through torture is always worth emphasising.
Oakman wrote:
By the way. I am not defending anyone who committed or authorised torture. Just as Stan oftime says that I must either agree with him or admit I am a commie, you seem to be telling me that because I do not think this is an issue worth too much agonizing over, I am as one with Torquemada. My world is just not that black and white.
I think it is very important. There are certain principles that evolved over the last 1,000 odd years of civilisation and I take any reversals of this progress extremely seriously. The idea that torture could become viewed as a mainstream policy in the US or any other Western country, endorsed by most members of one major political party and about half the general public, is something that would be hard to believe a decade ago. Opposition to torture has been a defining feature of Western and civilised values for my entire life. I am realistic enough to know that a certain amount of rough treatment has gone on in the shadows at the hands of
-
Oakman wrote:
I am surprised by the high-minded motives ascribed by you and Oily to people who are obviously politically motivated. Nixon was savaged in part for his arrogant stupidity and in part because he was a Republican. Clinton was savaged in part for his arrogant stupidity and in part because he was a Democrat. In neither case was the law of paramount importance to those attempting to bring down the presidency.
One takes for granted a large measure of partisan motivation. Nixon resigned when he decided that he had lost enough support among Republicans to lose his impeachment trial. Of course, even when people care about a principle, they don't entirely disregard the politics. It is easier to attack a wounded politician on a matter of principle than to attack one at the height of his popularity.
Oakman wrote:
Granted the irony - does that make what happened in the 50's or the mid 70's any less reprehensible?
If the mid 70s is a reference to Nixon, I don't think it was reprehensible. If it was a reference to the Church committee, then I don't know enough about it to offer a confident opinin.
Oakman wrote:
Is the irony worth more than a rueful smile before we move on to talk of serious issues?
I think the unreliability of evidence gained through torture is always worth emphasising.
Oakman wrote:
By the way. I am not defending anyone who committed or authorised torture. Just as Stan oftime says that I must either agree with him or admit I am a commie, you seem to be telling me that because I do not think this is an issue worth too much agonizing over, I am as one with Torquemada. My world is just not that black and white.
I think it is very important. There are certain principles that evolved over the last 1,000 odd years of civilisation and I take any reversals of this progress extremely seriously. The idea that torture could become viewed as a mainstream policy in the US or any other Western country, endorsed by most members of one major political party and about half the general public, is something that would be hard to believe a decade ago. Opposition to torture has been a defining feature of Western and civilised values for my entire life. I am realistic enough to know that a certain amount of rough treatment has gone on in the shadows at the hands of
John Carson wrote:
One takes for granted a large measure of partisan motivation.
90%? More?
John Carson wrote:
Opposition to torture has been a defining feature of Western and civilised values for my entire life.
You must be very disappointed by the real world. Your large neighbor to the north conducts torture daily. North Vietnam did it. So did North Korea, and NAZI Germany and Japan. But you did say, "western." I am relatively sure that most western powers (not just Germany) have - as you suggest - used torture when they thought it would bring results. It is my understand that the French use it now, though I have only oral reports to rely on.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The reason it took so long for an entire naval task force to deal with one little boat with four pirates is because the entire episode was being micromanaged by Obama's legal advisors.
It took as long as it took because the Seals did it right. Making up things about meetings you weren't there to see and about which there has been no credible reporting, to make a point hurts your case.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Making up things about meetings you weren't there to see and about which there has been no credible reporting, to make a point hurts your case.
Yeah, I know. But I rely exclusively upon any rumor and inuendo that might be used to hamstring the Obama administration. I mean, hell, it worked for the democrats against Bush. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95451[^]
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
In the 1970s, Nixon was forced from office and some people went to jail because there were enough people in Congress (including some Republicans) who cared enough about the law to make it happen.
I am surprised by the high-minded motives ascribed by you and Oily to people who are obviously politically motivated. Nixon was savaged in part for his arrogant stupidity and in part because he was a Republican. Clinton was savaged in part for his arrogant stupidity and in part because he was a Democrat. In neither case was the law of paramount importance to those attempting to bring down the presidency.
John Carson wrote:
It is supremely ironic that those complaining about "witchhunts" do so in opposing prosecution of those who promoted torture.
Granted the irony - does that make what happened in the 50's or the mid 70's any less reprehensible? Is the irony worth more than a rueful smile before we move on to talk of serious issues? By the way. I am not defending anyone who committed or authorised torture. Just as Stan oftime says that I must either agree with him or admit I am a commie, you seem to be telling me that because I do not think this is an issue worth too much agonizing over, I am as one with Torquemada. My world is just not that black and white.
John Carson wrote:
Torture, you see, provides very unreliable evidence.
So does the hearsay that is being repeated by the left and the right.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I am surprised by the high-minded motives ascribed by you and Oily
I have, of course, never addressed the motives of all those people who want investigations. I'm not interested in their motives. If Stan want to support investigations because he believes that it will destroy liberalism in the US, it doesn't matter to me that he does the right thing for the wrong reason. The merits of an idea stand independant of the transient motives of those that support the idea. Also, it is a pointless exercise. Neither you nor I can possibly know the motives of the millions of people who support investigations.
-
:thumbsup::thumbsup: gotta hand it to you, one of the best comments to date.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Figured you'd be telling us how in your neighborhood, the hookers giving blow jobs made Jaws (James Bond's, not Bruce) look tame. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Oakman wrote:
Making up things about meetings you weren't there to see and about which there has been no credible reporting, to make a point hurts your case.
Yeah, I know. But I rely exclusively upon any rumor and inuendo that might be used to hamstring the Obama administration. I mean, hell, it worked for the democrats against Bush. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95451[^]
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I mean, hell, it worked for the democrats against Bush
Not really. All it did was hurt your feelings
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
I am surprised by the high-minded motives ascribed by you and Oily
I have, of course, never addressed the motives of all those people who want investigations. I'm not interested in their motives. If Stan want to support investigations because he believes that it will destroy liberalism in the US, it doesn't matter to me that he does the right thing for the wrong reason. The merits of an idea stand independant of the transient motives of those that support the idea. Also, it is a pointless exercise. Neither you nor I can possibly know the motives of the millions of people who support investigations.
oilFactotum wrote:
Neither you nor I can possibly know the motives of the millions of people who support investigations.
Sorry. The way you went on and on about the rule of law and the way you have pretty much told Stan that because he disagrees with you, he does not support the rule of law, I got the impression that you could read people like a book, or at least think you do.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Neither you nor I can possibly know the motives of the millions of people who support investigations.
Sorry. The way you went on and on about the rule of law and the way you have pretty much told Stan that because he disagrees with you, he does not support the rule of law, I got the impression that you could read people like a book, or at least think you do.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
The way you went on and on about the rule of law
I have indeed. Don't see how that translates to motives.
Oakman wrote:
you have pretty much told Stan that because he disagrees with you, he does not support the rule of law,
Wrong again. I said he does not support the rule of law because he pretty much said so [^]