Obama throws Bush under the bus......accuses him of torture

[ClosedCaption]

Rabbi opposed Democratic legislation because we arent all rich. Seriously LMAO

 

[Uncensored2008]

Logic isnt who's strong point?

Would you agree that leftism is a manifestation of ones inability to reason?

 

[Jarhead]

If torture was so important for getting intelligence data from captive prisoners, why didn't bin laden get dead when they were using torture. So if bin laden didn't get dead until years after they stopped using torture and starting using modern techniques based on science and modern psychology why do idiots want to continue to use worthless ineffective methods that have a history of failure?
If the pro torture proponents are so smart, why is bin laden so dead?

I wouldn't have said anything if you said it once. But you said it twice so I felt compelled to say something.

"Get dead"?

What are you......three?

It was done on purpose as sarcasm reflecting the audience. I know, sarcasm does't work online, but it can still be self entertaining and occasionally spotted by someone besides an language major or teacher.

you know....I believe you. Your previous posts never reflected that type of misuse of the language.

I apologize. Usually I sense the sarcasm.....I missed it this time. I need to lighten up a bit.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Logic isnt who's strong point?

Would you agree that leftism is a manifestation of ones inability to reason?

You mean I cant reason like this?

Hmm, if Democratic economic policies were all so good we would all be millionaires. Since we are all not millionaires they must not be good.

Logic was not your strong point in school, eh Sparky?

No I cannot reason that way since its the exact opposite of reason

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you saying the lack of indictments means it didnt happen?

You're not very bright, are you?

You really need a new deflection line. This is your response about 10 times a day when you dont have an answer.

Lack of indictments means there was no crime.

False. Lack of indictments mean there were no indictments. Not that torture never happened. Do you know how many people have been victims of crimes that havent been reported or prosecuted? I guess that answer is zero since no indictments mean it never happened.

If the Obama Administration thinks the Bush Administration officials committed torture then they think there was a crime. Ergo there should be indictments. But there are no indictments. So which is it?

There are no indictments and torture is a crime. The better question is WHY isnt Obama handing down indictments? The answer is because the fucking Presidents protect previous presidents to cover THEIR own ass for when they themselves do some illegal shit in the name of the office.

Which goes back to my point. We are a lawless society because our government feels it is above the law. Torture, murder... just another day in DC.

 

[The Rabbi]

If torture was so important for getting intelligence data from captive prisoners, why didn't bin laden get dead when they were using torture. So if bin laden didn't get dead until years after they stopped using torture and starting using modern techniques based on science and modern psychology why do idiots want to continue to use worthless ineffective methods that have a history of failure?
If the pro torture proponents are so smart, why is bin laden so dead?

Hmm, if Democratic economic policies were all so good we would all be millionaires. Since we are all not millionaires they must not be good.

Logic was not your strong point in school, eh Sparky?

Logic isnt who's strong point?

Yours. obviously.

 

[The Rabbi]

Logic isnt who's strong point?

Would you agree that leftism is a manifestation of ones inability to reason?

You mean I cant reason like this?

Hmm, if Democratic economic policies were all so good we would all be millionaires. Since we are all not millionaires they must not be good.

Logic was not your strong point in school, eh Sparky?

No I cannot reason that way since its the exact opposite of reason

I'll bet you couldnt even begin to point out the fallacy there.

 

[Camp]

If torture was so important for getting intelligence data from captive prisoners, why didn't bin laden get dead when they were using torture. So if bin laden didn't get dead until years after they stopped using torture and starting using modern techniques based on science and modern psychology why do idiots want to continue to use worthless ineffective methods that have a history of failure?
If the pro torture proponents are so smart, why is bin laden so dead?

Hmm, if Democratic economic policies were all so good we would all be millionaires. Since we are all not millionaires they must not be good.

Logic was not your strong point in school, eh Sparky?

Are you kidding? Someone shows you a study that proves one thing works and another thing doesn't work. Using logic, which thing will you select? The thing that works or the thing that doesn't work?
Another question for you. If you are speaking about a topic such as torture, is it a sign of a posters lack of understanding if logic if they bring up a totally off topic, unrelated topic for comparison to make a point about logic?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you kidding? Someone shows you a study that proves one thing works and another thing doesn't work. Using logic, which thing will you select? The thing that works or the thing that doesn't work?

It depends who conducted the study, the parameters involved, and the controls used.

A "study" by CommonDreams on why Capitalism is a failure and Socialism so successful is of no value, and intended only to feed the mindless fools that infest boards such as this one.

Another question for you. If you are speaking about a topic such as torture, is it a sign a posters understanding of logic to bring up a totally off topic, unrelated topic for comparison to make a point about logic?

Ironic that you speak of diversion, since the entire reason Obama spewed this shit is in an effort to distract from his overall abysmal failure.

From the day he entered office, Obama has essentially had a single response to criticism; "BOOOOOOSSSSHHHH."

Obama comes off like a spoiled 2 year old. This is what we get for electing a gay president.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Which goes back to my point. We are a lawless society because our government feels it is above the law. Torture, murder... just another day in DC.

@ RKMBrown - I agree with you here. This "above-the-law" mentality is a dangerous thing.

I didn't want to see Nixon prosecuted.
I didn't want to see Clinton prosecuted.
I don't want to see Bush prosecuted.
I'm not eager to see Obama prosecuted.

I didn't want to see the damage it would do to the image of the United States.

But now I'm beginning to think that NOT prosecuting does even more damage.

Gonna have to ponder that some more.

 

[Jarhead]

Which goes back to my point. We are a lawless society because our government feels it is above the law. Torture, murder... just another day in DC.

@ RKMBrown - I agree with you here. This "above-the-law" mentality is a dangerous thing.

I didn't want to see Nixon prosecuted.
I didn't want to see Clinton prosecuted.
I don't want to see Bush prosecuted.
I'm not eager to see Obama prosecuted.

I didn't want to see the damage it would do to the image of the United States.

But now I'm beginning to think that NOT prosecuting does even more damage.

Gonna have to ponder that some more.

That was my point of yesterday.

Suing the President is not a political move. It may be politically motivated by the opposing party or politically criticized by the defending party....but for us Americans? It is necessary.

If our congress cant keep the executive office in check....who can?

And in the meantime, who keeps the congress in check?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Would you agree that leftism is a manifestation of ones inability to reason?

You mean I cant reason like this?

Hmm, if Democratic economic policies were all so good we would all be millionaires. Since we are all not millionaires they must not be good.

Logic was not your strong point in school, eh Sparky?

No I cannot reason that way since its the exact opposite of reason

I'll bet you couldnt even begin to point out the fallacy there.

If cake is good we should all be fat right?

Because your logic removes human action and pretends that policy will make everyone fiscally responsible

 

[nodoginnafight]

Which goes back to my point. We are a lawless society because our government feels it is above the law. Torture, murder... just another day in DC.

@ RKMBrown - I agree with you here. This "above-the-law" mentality is a dangerous thing.

I didn't want to see Nixon prosecuted.
I didn't want to see Clinton prosecuted.
I don't want to see Bush prosecuted.
I'm not eager to see Obama prosecuted.

I didn't want to see the damage it would do to the image of the United States.

But now I'm beginning to think that NOT prosecuting does even more damage.

Gonna have to ponder that some more.

That was my point of yesterday.

Suing the President is not a political move. It may be politically motivated by the opposing party or politically criticized by the defending party....but for us Americans? It is necessary.

If our congress cant keep the executive office in check....who can?

And in the meantime, who keeps the congress in check?

I agree. But a civil suit is a lot different than a criminal prosecution in my opinion.
But I do agree that apparently we are going to have to stop protecting politicians from the legal consequences of their actions.

 

[The Rabbi]

You mean I cant reason like this?




No I cannot reason that way since its the exact opposite of reason

I'll bet you couldnt even begin to point out the fallacy there.

If cake is good we should all be fat right?

Because your logic removes human action and pretends that policy will make everyone fiscally responsible

LOL! Laughably wrong. You really don't get it.
Let me explain the issue here. Camp posited that in order to be successful the program had to reach some goal that he set. Specifically waterboarding had to produce bin Laden's death. Other measures of success make more sense and the one he chose was an unrealistic expectation of the outcome of the policy. Nor was it even the stated outcome of the policy.
By analogy I posited that Democratic economic policies ought to make everyone millionaires. This is even though that is not a realistic goal of economic policies, nor is it the stated goal of such policies.

Your pitiful attempt to show something analogous shows we can add analogy to the things you dont understand.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Hypothetical question:

Obama's statement could prompt some foreign powers to attempt to try George Bush. Some countries reserve the right to do these prosecutions on their own and they can even do it without Bush there.

How do you folks feel about that.

I have real problems with some other nation putting a former POTUS on trial for actions he took as POTUS. Some nations just don't like us and would do it just to be a pain in our asses. I don't like the idea at all.

But is that just shielding a politician?

 

[The Rabbi]

@ RKMBrown - I agree with you here. This "above-the-law" mentality is a dangerous thing.

I didn't want to see Nixon prosecuted.
I didn't want to see Clinton prosecuted.
I don't want to see Bush prosecuted.
I'm not eager to see Obama prosecuted.

I didn't want to see the damage it would do to the image of the United States.

But now I'm beginning to think that NOT prosecuting does even more damage.

Gonna have to ponder that some more.

That was my point of yesterday.

Suing the President is not a political move. It may be politically motivated by the opposing party or politically criticized by the defending party....but for us Americans? It is necessary.

If our congress cant keep the executive office in check....who can?

And in the meantime, who keeps the congress in check?

I agree. But a civil suit is a lot different than a criminal prosecution in my opinion.
But I do agree that apparently we are going to have to stop protecting politicians from the legal consequences of their actions.

What does that last sentence even mean? If a politican proposes a cut in welfare and someone goes nuts because his check has been reduced and kills people, are we prosecuting the politician because he proposed it?
There is a big difference between actual criminal action, like taking bribes, and pushing a policy that may or may not have adverse consequences.
I would never think to prosecute Obama for trying to install a dictator in Honduras. Bad policy, yes. Criminally acitonable, no. But if it were discovered he used the IRs to suppress opposition that is criminal and yes I would support prosecuting him.
Similarly Bush's advisors worked long and hard on the issue of waterboarding and its legality. You can disagree with their conclusions, and that's valid. But saying they were criminals because of it is not valid.

 

[Jarhead]

@ RKMBrown - I agree with you here. This "above-the-law" mentality is a dangerous thing.

I didn't want to see Nixon prosecuted.
I didn't want to see Clinton prosecuted.
I don't want to see Bush prosecuted.
I'm not eager to see Obama prosecuted.

I didn't want to see the damage it would do to the image of the United States.

But now I'm beginning to think that NOT prosecuting does even more damage.

Gonna have to ponder that some more.

That was my point of yesterday.

Suing the President is not a political move. It may be politically motivated by the opposing party or politically criticized by the defending party....but for us Americans? It is necessary.

If our congress cant keep the executive office in check....who can?

And in the meantime, who keeps the congress in check?

I agree. But a civil suit is a lot different than a criminal prosecution in my opinion.
But I do agree that apparently we are going to have to stop protecting politicians from the legal consequences of their actions.

to me, a civil suit or criminal prosecution is fine....as long as a precedent is set.

Congress cant conduct a criminal prosecution...and the DoJ will NEVER prosecute his/her own party president.....so a civil suit is the only option.

But again, I ask......who oversees congress?

 

[Jarhead]

Hypothetical question:

Obama's statement could prompt some foreign powers to attempt to try George Bush. Some countries reserve the right to do these prosecutions on their own and they can even do it without Bush there.

How do you folks feel about that.

I have real problems with some other nation putting a former POTUS on trial for actions he took as POTUS. Some nations just don't like us and would do it just to be a pain in our asses. I don't like the idea at all.

But is that just shielding a politician?

I would submit this question to the debate board for one of the 2016 presidential debates.

It will give us the thought process of the candidates.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I was at the dentist getting a filling repaired and he initially worked without anesthetic. If necessary, I would have given him my bank account number just to get the pain killer.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The first hack has no business to complain about torture since he's been torturing this country with his green economic bullshit.