bush's new book getting him into trouble (admitting to waterboarding)

[daveman]

Flap flap flap . . . flap flap ... did I say flap flap flap? You are so unoriginal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flap.

 

[daveman]

Flap.

If you're going to fap over Obama, do it elsewhere. You do it enough here already.

 

[Intense]

That is so true, Intense, so please explain to daveman and the others they have no impact on this matter other than flapping their lips.

Voice is very integral Jake when it comes to shedding light on wrong doing. It takes time to realize some truths, some more than others, that's all. If it is genuine, you won't be able to obstruct it indefinitely. In the end, Justice is served, whether it be done voluntarily or kicking and screaming, is determined by whether the culprit has totally abandoned reason or not.

Personally, I honor those that expose injustice and wrong doing, so that the course can be corrected and maintained.

Many of those of the Oligarchy, even from days past, never expected to have their thoughts, writings, arguments, exposed for all to see. That is a big problem for them. It is more a matter of time, when, rather than if, that these wrongs are rectified.

What authority is there above the Court you all continually imply. Who is the Court accountable to other than it's self, I ask? There are Three known authority is above the Court. God, The constitution, and The Will of the 75% majority. Keep thinking that words don't matter, or that the trick of redefining meaning and intent, of imagining things in the Constitution that aren't there when they are, or that, things that are there aren't. Time will rectify that.

 

[daveman]

"Torture". Do you think Amnesty International should investigate our military for waterboarding our own troops who are waterboarded as part of SERE training?

If you want to be consistent, you do.

Troops undergoing training are not being tortured for information or punishment.

Ahhh...so you support torture for certain purposes.

I guess consistency was a little too much to expect.

 

[rightwinger]

Ahem.

Ahem.....our court system has been defining the scope of General Welfare for 200 years. Rightwingers trying to redefine it on message boards has no legal standing

Yes, unfortunately, the Democratic Party's practice of vote-buying has been codified into law.

Because, hey, if you can't convince people to vote for you based on your ideals, buy 'em off. Right?

Very simplistic, wouldn't you say Dave?

It would be like me accusing the Republicans of only doing things because they are bought off by the wealthy.

The reason we provide welfare is because it is the right thing to do. No civilized society allows its people to suffer due to a lack of money. No civilized society discards its less fortunate.

And yes, that falls under the General Welfare clause of the Constitution

 

[mudwhistle]

Ahem.....our court system has been defining the scope of General Welfare for 200 years. Rightwingers trying to redefine it on message boards has no legal standing

Yes, unfortunately, the Democratic Party's practice of vote-buying has been codified into law.

Because, hey, if you can't convince people to vote for you based on your ideals, buy 'em off. Right?

Very simplistic, wouldn't you say Dave?

It would be like me accusing the Republicans of only doing things because they are bought off by the wealthy.

The reason we provide welfare is because it is the right thing to do. No civilized society allows its people to suffer due to a lack of money. No civilized society discards its less fortunate.

And yes, that falls under the General Welfare clause of the Constitution

Yes...your example is hogwash mainly because it's not true. Providing a good climate for job creation helps everyone....not just the rich. You can't provide this climate unless it covers everyone.

You can never see past your partisan ideology that screwing one group while propping up another is not only unfair but causes divisions and resentment.

The General Welfare clause is not that specific. General Welfare means allowing the people to live their lives without unjust interference from government. The problem is the Progressives in our government are overreaching and infringing on our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They want to tell us what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke, what to drive, so-on. Live in SF and you'll discover that they practically want to tell you how to take a crap.

 

[daveman]

Ahem.....our court system has been defining the scope of General Welfare for 200 years. Rightwingers trying to redefine it on message boards has no legal standing

Yes, unfortunately, the Democratic Party's practice of vote-buying has been codified into law.

Because, hey, if you can't convince people to vote for you based on your ideals, buy 'em off. Right?

Very simplistic, wouldn't you say Dave?

Perhaps, but history shows it to be accurate.

It would be like me accusing the Republicans of only doing things because they are bought off by the wealthy.

If you don't, plenty of the left does.

The reason we provide welfare is because it is the right thing to do. No civilized society allows its people to suffer due to a lack of money. No civilized society discards its less fortunate.

And people aren't capable of taking care of their own? Only government can do it?

And yes, that falls under the General Welfare clause of the Constitution

Do you think the Founding Fathers would approve of taking money from people who earned it and giving it to those who can work but refuse to?

I don't.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, unfortunately, the Democratic Party's practice of vote-buying has been codified into law.

Because, hey, if you can't convince people to vote for you based on your ideals, buy 'em off. Right?

Very simplistic, wouldn't you say Dave?

It would be like me accusing the Republicans of only doing things because they are bought off by the wealthy.

The reason we provide welfare is because it is the right thing to do. No civilized society allows its people to suffer due to a lack of money. No civilized society discards its less fortunate.

And yes, that falls under the General Welfare clause of the Constitution

Yes...your example is hogwash mainly because it's not true. Providing a good climate for job creation helps everyone....not just the rich. You can't provide this climate unless it covers everyone.

You can never see past your partisan ideology that screwing one group while propping up another is not only unfair but causes divisions and resentment.

The General Welfare clause is not that specific. General Welfare means allowing the people to live their lives without unjust interference from government. The problem is the Progressives in our government are overreaching and infringing on our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They want to tell us what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke, what to drive, so-on. Live in SF and you'll discover that they practically want to tell you how to take a crap.

This is why our political system is so busted. The mentality of..."We are doing whats best for the country and they are corrupt". Both sides use it and nothing gets accomplished because of it.

General Welfare was wisely included in the Constitution. And it doesn't mean welfare as in giving money to poor people. It means Congress has the right to do what they think is best for the country. The term is intentionally broad to provide lattitude over what is in the best interests of the people over time. If Congress is abusing the scope of "General Welfare" we have the courts to reign them in

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is so true, Intense, so please explain to daveman and the others they have no impact on this matter other than flapping their lips.

Voice is very integral Jake when it comes to shedding light on wrong doing. It takes time to realize some truths, some more than others, that's all. If it is genuine, you won't be able to obstruct it indefinitely. In the end, Justice is served, whether it be done voluntarily or kicking and screaming, is determined by whether the culprit has totally abandoned reason or not.

Personally, I honor those that expose injustice and wrong doing, so that the course can be corrected and maintained.

Many of those of the Oligarchy, even from days past, never expected to have their thoughts, writings, arguments, exposed for all to see. That is a big problem for them. It is more a matter of time, when, rather than if, that these wrongs are rectified.

What authority is there above the Court you all continually imply. Who is the Court accountable to other than it's self, I ask? There are Three known authority is above the Court. God, The constitution, and The Will of the 75% majority. Keep thinking that words don't matter, or that the trick of redefining meaning and intent, of imagining things in the Constitution that aren't there when they are, or that, things that are there aren't. Time will rectify that.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say. Words do matter, But in no possible way in this life will the davemans ever talk with authority and power for God, the Constitution, or the 75%.

 

[Intense]

That is so true, Intense, so please explain to daveman and the others they have no impact on this matter other than flapping their lips.

Voice is very integral Jake when it comes to shedding light on wrong doing. It takes time to realize some truths, some more than others, that's all. If it is genuine, you won't be able to obstruct it indefinitely. In the end, Justice is served, whether it be done voluntarily or kicking and screaming, is determined by whether the culprit has totally abandoned reason or not.

Personally, I honor those that expose injustice and wrong doing, so that the course can be corrected and maintained.

Many of those of the Oligarchy, even from days past, never expected to have their thoughts, writings, arguments, exposed for all to see. That is a big problem for them. It is more a matter of time, when, rather than if, that these wrongs are rectified.

What authority is there above the Court you all continually imply. Who is the Court accountable to other than it's self, I ask? There are Three known authority is above the Court. God, The constitution, and The Will of the 75% majority. Keep thinking that words don't matter, or that the trick of redefining meaning and intent, of imagining things in the Constitution that aren't there when they are, or that, things that are there aren't. Time will rectify that.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say. Words do matter, But in no possible way in this life will the davemans ever talk with authority and power for God, the Constitution, or the 75%.

We are all in transition Jake. Just a thought.

Never say Never.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would never say never!

 

[daveman]

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say. Words do matter, But in no possible way in this life will the davemans ever talk with authority and power for God, the Constitution, or the 75%.

Where did I claim I did, boy?

You sure are afraid of differing opinions, aren't you?

 

[martybegan]

Marty, you sound like a whiny police chief my brother fired some years ago in our town. We have "the rules" so that we don't become like the bad guys. Bad guys torture their enemies. The bad guys cut their heads off on film. As one commanding officer told his men so long ago, "We don't torture the bad guys when we catch them doing those things, we kill them in combat if we can, and if we capture them, we give them tribunals fair and straight, and then we shoot them.'" You who support torture are no different than the bad guys. You and your kind are from hell. You are not American.

And the ad hominem attack begins. You cannot counter what I am saying, and it is not what you beleive in, so you compare me someone you dont like, and call me evil.

Great debating skill there, and very naive, simplistic way of looking at how the world works.

 

[martybegan]

Well..which is it? A crime or an act of war? The right seems to switch back and forth depending on the mood.

Botom line is torture is a crime against humanity and it applies to everyone. Civilized societies do not engage in torture, even if it is only three times and might save lives.
Our most heinous criminals are not allowed to be tortured.

The US has always held itself up as a model of liberty and humanity. To claim that the rules against torture do not apply to us is hypocritical

So basically the other guy can be allowed to break the rules at whim, with no repercussions or consequences. At that point having the rules becomes meaningless. Once our enemies realize we will provide them with all of our protections and rights without them having to follow any of the rules of society and war, we basically give them the keys to the vault, and allow them to fight on thier terms, not ours.

But in the end, you can feel confident that we "stuck to our principles." Hopefully you arent feeling this as a scattered bit of atoms after a nuke attack, or watching it on TV while one of our cities is reduced to rubble.

If that happens I want to hear ZERO complaining from those who would prevent our government from using any interrogations technique harder then asking really really angrily for whoever we might capture to spill thier guts.

What a childish reply...

We are the United States of America. We do not sink to the depravity of the "other guy". If we catch them we try them in a court of law and provide all the protections provided by civilized nations.

What is childish about it? Again, you dont like it, so it HAS to be illegal. No one has refuted ANY of my points.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No ad hom because the comparison between you and the jihadists is exact. They torture, you admit you approve of torture. Ergo, they hate America, thus you hate America. You are condemned by your own words, Marty. Slink off, slime.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So basically the other guy can be allowed to break the rules at whim, with no repercussions or consequences. At that point having the rules becomes meaningless. Once our enemies realize we will provide them with all of our protections and rights without them having to follow any of the rules of society and war, we basically give them the keys to the vault, and allow them to fight on thier terms, not ours.

But in the end, you can feel confident that we "stuck to our principles." Hopefully you arent feeling this as a scattered bit of atoms after a nuke attack, or watching it on TV while one of our cities is reduced to rubble.

If that happens I want to hear ZERO complaining from those who would prevent our government from using any interrogations technique harder then asking really really angrily for whoever we might capture to spill thier guts.

What a childish reply...

We are the United States of America. We do not sink to the depravity of the "other guy". If we catch them we try them in a court of law and provide all the protections provided by civilized nations.

What is childish about it? Again, you dont like it, so it HAS to be illegal. No one has refuted ANY of my points.

Your point is if the bad guys do it, we get to do it. Your thinking is that of a stooge.

 

[rdean]

Republicans meeting in lesbian bondage bars to make strategy?

Of course they're into torture.

Oooh, Ohhh, hit me again.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans meeting in lesbian bondage bars to make strategy?

Of course they're into torture.

Oooh, Ohhh, hit me again.

He obviously deserves it

 

[Intense]

Fuck, It's the Stan and Ollie Show!!!!