oilFactotum wrote: Of course not, you still just pretending to be ignorant. So then you admit to painting elective abortion in the soft fuzzy light of "medical care". I guess you're also a fan of hyperbole when it suits your purpose. oilFactotum wrote: No, he was killed because of who he was. Again, notify the authorities. He most likely was, but you don't know why. oilFactotum wrote: This was not an isolated incident. So it was a conspiracy? Or are you saying that the man who killed Tiller was involved in other attacks on clinics and/or "doctors". oilFactotum wrote: You're claiming that the context that the attack comes in is irrelevant. No, I'm acknowledging the fact that you don't know what the context was. oilFactotum wrote: You've made it clear that we must know his private motives before we can determine if his is a terrorist. You don't know why suicide bombers act. It could be for personal revenge, it could be for money for the family. Who's feigning ignorance now? People shoot other people all the time for many many reasons. And most of the time their aim is to stop somebody from breathing, not as a warning to other people. Suicide bombers strap explosives to themselves and blow up many many other people at once for one and only one reason. But I'll acknowledge the possibility that there may have been an odd bomber somewhere in history that did it for some other reason. Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

What's accurate? Are you claiming that there is a qualatative difference in the definition of torture in those various documents? Prove it.

oilFactotum wrote: Sorry bud, but you're nonsense is not wisdom. On the other hand, my spelling of "your" is education. I'm done - find someone else to troll. Maybe Stan will play some more. 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

Basically your response was bereft of facts. And your new response here is equally bereft. As there is nothing here save ad hominem attacks, we are done.

Oakman wrote: I find myself in strange agreement with Obama as this shakes out. I do not think that the CIA ops should be prosecuted for doing what they were told they were legally empowered to do. But I do think we should take a look at what those legal opinions were (though, last time I looked, you can't proesecute a lawyer for rendering an opinion) and absolutely, definitely, we need to take a look at those in a position of leadership who either gave the orders or aquieced in the giving of them. This would, of course, include Bush, Cheney and some of their cabinet, but also the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of their respective intelligence committees. Delighted to hear it. John Carson

Ilíon wrote: And -- as per your usual habit -- you're not paying attention to what you'd like to pretend you're critiquing. Everything John said was correct and this discussion is not about what other countries do, it is about what the United States of America does. While I do make a differentiation between treaties having the force of law and law itself, it is because I know pretty much what I am talking about. I do not claim that because North Korea flouts treaties, we should start imitating them. You on the other hand imitate an eight year old making an excuse for his bad behavior by saying someone else did it first. 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

Unfortunately Oily is our own native thugocrat.

shiftedbitmonkey wrote: You are playing the gotcha game in this one. You bet. Turn about is fair play, though Fergie doesn't seem to think so. Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

It's an issue within the party. Sure, that's correct. Of course it's also correct to say the same of the other party. oilFactotum wrote: You much prefer to attack what you want me to be saying rather than what I actually say. Have you considered the possibility that you just suck at presenting arguments? It's not what I 'want' you to say, it's what you appear to be saying (and it's obviously not just me). I'm sorry, but it's difficult to be you and expect the benifit of the doubt on some things. That may be wrong, but that's the way things are. Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

Stan Shannon wrote: That isn't a misquote, it is a very accurate paraphraseing of what he said. That's bullshit and you know it. Were someone to pull something similar about Palin, you'd be all over them six ways from Sunday. Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon wrote: Obama had more contact with Ayers than just that board. And no doubt more contact with many other people as well. Stan Shannon wrote: Rev Wright was crucial to his career - putting hin touch with a large community or leftist radicals who actively promoted his ambitions. I don't think that is true. No doubt Obama met some useful congregants (Oprah, for example, that well-known dangerous radical), but Obama met people all over the place. I don't think Wright has had much active involvement in Obama's political career. Stan Shannon wrote: And if you want to discuss Harvard, you have to discuss how he got there. No-one is disputing that Obama has some radical connections. The point is that he has connections across the board. Stan Shannon wrote: Which he himself described as being 'behind enemy lines' or something to that affect. He has a sense of humour. Shocking! Stan Shannon wrote: WHich were either radical, or which he tried to help radicalize with the help of groups such as ACORN and friends such as Ayers. He strong armed businesses into providing him with financial help. Fact-free smears. Standard Republican tactics. Stan Shannon wrote: It isn't paranoia, its the man's history. Even as a child he was mentored by rabid communists. His entire adult life has been an exploration of the most radically leftist elements of American society. Rubbish. He has a diverse background, which is a strength, not a weakness. Are you unaware that many of the neo-cons have left wing backgrounds? John Carson

As usual, you are correct and Illidiot is wrong. But you do know that arguing with his ilk is pointless. He has a mind like a steel cage. Nothing gets in and nothing gets out.

Oakman wrote: Then how come you lose all the time? I don't. (Speaking of acting like a nine year old,btw) Oakman wrote: Gotta get rid of Thomas Jefferson and his ilk. Oakman wrote: Gotta get rid of Thomas Jefferson and his ilk. We certainly need to shout down those who mischaracterize the man as a libertarian. He wasn't. He would have seen the inherent unworkability of libertarian principles as easily as any other intelligent person. That's why he didn't create a government based on those principles. 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.

BoneSoft wrote: oilFactotum wrote: If you want to play, then prove you point. You make my point for me with almost every post. You continue to fail miserably. BoneSoft wrote: You are the clinical definition of partisan. No shit, Sherlock. I have never pretended not to be partisan. But that is not what you claimed I was. BoneSoft wrote: You mean No, I meant what I said. You have nothing to say. BoneSoft wrote: Seriously, I expected better from you. Then actually have something to say to me. "Pot meet kettle" doesn't really deserve any respect.

Oakman wrote: So it was just a case of the pot calling the kettle black No. Oakman wrote: But all we ever hear about is all the things you don't believe Untrue, of course. Oakman wrote: all the people you hate No. What this shows is your failure to take your blinders off. I've never expressed hate at all. That you attribute this to me shows you are not listening and simply putting up a strawman in my place to attack. Oakman wrote: If what I believed in made me as grumpy as you Another false attribution. When you have something of substance to say to me, I'll be happy to listen.

Yahoo News! China space mission article hits Web before launch [^]

I vote present, sir. MrPlankton

Oakman wrote: The why, pray tell, Does George43 want to use professional soldiers rather than weekend warriors? Gee, maybe because professional soldiers are more...well...professional? :rolleyes: 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.

Yippy, we have elected conspiracy theorists... Great. :sigh: [edit] But I'm with you, I like her suggestions... Down to the hub caps on their Mercedes. [/edit] Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well. modified on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:24 PM

The only time I've ever heard of a presidential address was "I had inappropriate relations..". It would be nice to hear one.. i read history books about them sometimes.