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

[ClosedCaption]

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.

I dont care what Camp posted. Talk to me and tell me why your logical fallacy isnt a fallacy because Camp said something

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

1) You are right in that a DoJ would be very reluctant to prosecute a president. Not the the DoJ has a political leaning, but whoever the POTUS is, he/she is the chief law enforcement officer in the nation, so yeah it's hard to prosecute criminally except through impeachment.

And that is a decent option to criminally prosecute a POTUS.

The problem I have with civil suits is that anyone can file a civil suit at any time. Are we going to devolve the presidency into the defendant in chief? I haven't seen any indications that either side is "above" knee-capping a POTUS by just burying him or her under a pile of lawsuits.

I don't like that option - I like impeachment better.

As to "who oversees congress"... I guess theoretically we do. We get to vote on 'em. And I guess the FBI - abscam.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I dont care what Camp posted. Talk to me and tell me why your logical fallacy isnt a fallacy because Camp said something

You dont care that the context of my post was a response to what Camp posted? Are you that stupid?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Right after I got married, my lovely wife and I were in Las Vegas. The pool at the hotel had a topless level. We went to it and my wife took her top off.

Under Saudi Arabian law, she is to be stoned for this. Do they have the "right" to try her in front of Mullahs and stone her?

It's laughable bullshit - just as the idiocy from hyper-partisan hack nodog is laughable bullshit. American citizens are not subject to the laws of foreign lands. Nodog hates BOOOOSSSSHHHH as fealty to his filthy party, but his mental masturbation about Iraq swooping in and taking the object he has been conditioned to salivate with hatred against, off to hang is utter retardation - the kind that only the moronic hacks of the left can come up with.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

I dont care what Camp posted. Talk to me and tell me why your logical fallacy isnt a fallacy because Camp said something

You dont care that the context of my post was a response to what Camp posted? Are you that stupid?

Using responding to a post as an excuse doesnt mean its suddenly is logical.

2+2 doesnt equal 7 depending on the context.

 

[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?

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.

Right after I got married, my lovely wife and I were in Las Vegas. The pool at the hotel had a topless level. We went to it and my wife took her top off.

Under Saudi Arabian law, she is to be stoned for this. Do they have the "right" to try her in front of Mullahs and stone her?

It's laughable bullshit - just as the idiocy from hyper-partisan hack nodog is laughable bullshit. American citizens are not subject to the laws of foreign lands. Nodog hates BOOOOSSSSHHHH as fealty to his filthy party, but his mental masturbation about Iraq swooping in and taking the object he has been conditioned to salivate with hatred against, off to hang is utter retardation - the kind that only the moronic hacks of the left can come up with.

I'm sorry. I thought everyone was aware that we were discussing war crimes prosecutions.

Are your wife's tits weapons of mass destruction?

 

[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.

Right after I got married, my lovely wife and I were in Las Vegas. The pool at the hotel had a topless level. We went to it and my wife took her top off.

Under Saudi Arabian law, she is to be stoned for this. Do they have the "right" to try her in front of Mullahs and stone her?

It's laughable bullshit - just as the idiocy from hyper-partisan hack nodog is laughable bullshit. American citizens are not subject to the laws of foreign lands. Nodog hates BOOOOSSSSHHHH as fealty to his filthy party, but his mental masturbation about Iraq swooping in and taking the object he has been conditioned to salivate with hatred against, off to hang is utter retardation - the kind that only the moronic hacks of the left can come up with.

Is your wife aware that all 300 of us on this board are aware that she took her top off?

 

[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.

Right after I got married, my lovely wife and I were in Las Vegas. The pool at the hotel had a topless level. We went to it and my wife took her top off.

Under Saudi Arabian law, she is to be stoned for this. Do they have the "right" to try her in front of Mullahs and stone her?

It's laughable bullshit - just as the idiocy from hyper-partisan hack nodog is laughable bullshit. American citizens are not subject to the laws of foreign lands. Nodog hates BOOOOSSSSHHHH as fealty to his filthy party, but his mental masturbation about Iraq swooping in and taking the object he has been conditioned to salivate with hatred against, off to hang is utter retardation - the kind that only the moronic hacks of the left can come up with.

Actually, we all ARE subject to their laws...and if they find us guilty, they will likely not be able to extradite us....but we will not be able to travel to their country and territories.

So it is a valid question.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Right after I got married, my lovely wife and I were in Las Vegas. The pool at the hotel had a topless level. We went to it and my wife took her top off.

Under Saudi Arabian law, she is to be stoned for this. Do they have the "right" to try her in front of Mullahs and stone her?

It's laughable bullshit - just as the idiocy from hyper-partisan hack nodog is laughable bullshit. American citizens are not subject to the laws of foreign lands. Nodog hates BOOOOSSSSHHHH as fealty to his filthy party, but his mental masturbation about Iraq swooping in and taking the object he has been conditioned to salivate with hatred against, off to hang is utter retardation - the kind that only the moronic hacks of the left can come up with.

I'm sorry. I thought everyone was aware that we were discussing war crimes prosecutions.

Are your wife's tits weapons of mass destruction?

Sadly....at best, my wifes tits are weapons of mini destruction.

And that's on a good day.

 

[The Rabbi]

Right after I got married, my lovely wife and I were in Las Vegas. The pool at the hotel had a topless level. We went to it and my wife took her top off.

Under Saudi Arabian law, she is to be stoned for this. Do they have the "right" to try her in front of Mullahs and stone her?

It's laughable bullshit - just as the idiocy from hyper-partisan hack nodog is laughable bullshit. American citizens are not subject to the laws of foreign lands. Nodog hates BOOOOSSSSHHHH as fealty to his filthy party, but his mental masturbation about Iraq swooping in and taking the object he has been conditioned to salivate with hatred against, off to hang is utter retardation - the kind that only the moronic hacks of the left can come up with.

I'm sorry. I thought everyone was aware that we were discussing war crimes prosecutions.

Are your wife's tits weapons of mass destruction?

Sadly....at best, my wifes tits are weapons of mini destruction.

And that's on a good day.

Pics or it didnt happen.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm sorry. I thought everyone was aware that we were discussing war crimes prosecutions.

Are your wife's tits weapons of mass destruction?

Sadly....at best, my wifes tits are weapons of mini destruction.

And that's on a good day.

Pics or it didnt happen.

(.) (.)

That's the best I got.

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont care what Camp posted. Talk to me and tell me why your logical fallacy isnt a fallacy because Camp said something

You dont care that the context of my post was a response to what Camp posted? Are you that stupid?

Using responding to a post as an excuse doesnt mean its suddenly is logical.

2+2 doesnt equal 7 depending on the context.

Wow. So you dont care about context in a discussion. I thin I've just exceeded my quota of stupid with you for the day.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You dont care that the context of my post was a response to what Camp posted? Are you that stupid?

Using responding to a post as an excuse doesnt mean its suddenly is logical.

2+2 doesnt equal 7 depending on the context.

Wow. So you dont care about context in a discussion. I thin I've just exceeded my quota of stupid with you for the day.

Wow. No logic doesnt change because of context - logic is logical on its own.

And your post was illogical

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm sorry. I thought everyone was aware that we were discussing war crimes prosecutions.

No nation has the right or ability to bring charges against a United States President - regardless of your partisan fantasy.

Are your wife's tits weapons of mass destruction?

Without question.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is your wife aware that all 300 of us on this board are aware that she took her top off?

There were far more than 300 in the pool area, so I doubt it would be much concern...

 

[chikenwing]

1) Waterboarding IS torture. The United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for doing it to American soldiers in WW II.

2) A lot more than 3 people were waterboarded.

3) It saved NO American lives because the information gained was so unreliable (people will say ANYTHING they think you want to hear to stop torture) that many Americans gave their lives trying to verify all the false leads.

4) The fact that you think you can undermine my argument my calling me names underscores the weakness of your argument. I have voted Libertarian as many times as I have voted Democrat and I've voted Republican twice as many times as the others combined. I'm not anti-conservative. I'm anti-stupid. That means I have plenty of people to oppose on all points along the political spectrum.

1. we do it to american soldiers as part of their training, are we torturing our own soldiers?
2. wrong, it was only 3
3. we will never know how many lives were saved by the info gathered from KSM and the other 2
4. if you are so brilliant you would understand that waterboarding is not torture. putting electric leads to your nuts is torture. putting a person in a woodchipper feet first is torture, pulling out fingernails is torture, breaking bones is torture--------squirting water up your nose is not torture. Wake the fuck up.

1) yes
2) Wrong
3) Then you admit your original claim was pulled out of your ass
4) If waterboarding is NOT torture, why did we convict Japanese soldiers of war crimes when they did it to our guys?

Because they lost,and all the other shit they did.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, we all ARE subject to their laws...and if they find us guilty, they will likely not be able to extradite us....but we will not be able to travel to their country and territories.

So it is a valid question.

You are completely wrong and ignorant of what jurisdiction is.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No matter what context you put it "Dems legislation must be bad because we arent all rich" is not logical

 

[Uncensored2008]

No matter what context you put it "Dems legislation must be bad because we arent all rich" is not logical

True, legislation promoted by the Khmer Rouge democrats is bad because it is crafted to increase the power of the party at the expense of the nation, and the people within.

 

[chikenwing]

Actually no, he did not make that clear

It is just you putting words in his mouth

{WASHINGTON — Intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him, CIA Chief Leon Panetta told NBC News on Tuesday. }

Try a different lie, that was an;

Once again, conservatives selectively quote what was actually said

Panetta: Waterboarding Produced Some Leads Used to Get bin Laden

Leon Panetta, who as CIA director oversaw the U.S. operation that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, said the job could have been done without resorting to controversial interrogation methods that some have said constitute torture.
I think we could have gotten Bin Laden without that," Panetta added in response to a question about what the interviewer called enhanced interrogation or torture.
Panetta did not elaborate on how this might have been done, but said most of the intelligence used to find bin Laden had been stitched together without resort to enhanced interrogation.

you missed the I think part,Peneta didn't take part in much of the Bin laden hunt,just as Obama didn't all the hard work was done for them by others.