Ready For New Stiff Spine In Foreign Policy???

[Lewdog]

Even Repubs are beginning to see the Trump-Russian connection.

It's so funny that waterboarding has been in the news for years about how horrible of a torture it is... and here is some chick in the forum acting like it's no big deal. And she calls me uninformed.

Torture????

OK...here's another lesson for you, you dunce.



From “Magnifico: The Brilliant Life and Violent Times of Lorenzo De Medici,” by Miles Unger, p. 227-228.

An incident recorded by the diarist Luca Landucci vividly illustrated the dangers awaiting those who threatened bodily harm to the leading citizens of the regime:
27th September [1481]. A certain hermit came to the house of Lorenzo de’ Medici at the Poggio a Caiano; and the servants declared that he intended to murder Lorenzo, so they took him and sent him to the Bargello, and he was put to the rack.
15th October. This hermit died at Santa Maria Novella, having been tortured in various ways. It was said that they skinned the soles of his feet, and then burnt them by holding them in the fire till the fat dripped off them; after which they set him upright and made him walk across the hall; and these things caused his death. Opinions were divided as to whether he were guilty or innocent.


Understand now, pantywaist?

You're quoting someone from 1481 on torture today? You don't get it do you? You just just equated waterboarding to do a beer chug in college. You've go to be the dumbest person I've ever met.

Face it.
You've been force-fed propaganda and aren't smart enough to question it.
In other words, a reliable Democrat voter.

There has never been any torture by the US government. Never.

Now...watch me ram your words down your throat:

1. [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=117666&styleid=2



2. Originally Posted by Holder's Justice Department
[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) . . . .
Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...partments-torture-hypocrisy/andrew-c-mccarthy



You feel really stupid about now, huh?

No, I don't feel stupid...and using loaded comments doesn't change that. It's like me saying, "Do you post here because you are too lazy to get a job or too stupid for anyone to hire you?"

Waterboarding is torture, and for you to equate it to a beer chug is fucking comical.

"Waterboarding is torture, and for you to equate it to a beer chug is fucking comical."

But one of your masters said it isn't.

1. [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=117666&styleid=2



2. Originally Posted by Holder's Justice Department

[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) . . . .

Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...partments-torture-hypocrisy/andrew-c-mccarthy


So you must be one of their drones not smart enough to keep up with the propaganda.


And...clearly, as both enhanced technique of waterboarding and the college prank of chugalug both have exactly the same 20-40 second deprivation of oxygen.....
...either one is torture,or neither are.


QED....you're simply a robot of the Left.

True?

Another loaded piece of crap. My masters? I don't have a master and Eric Holder was a complete douche. Either you are an idiot willfully or you have some kind of mental defect, which is it? Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't.

You see how that works rightard?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Trump obviously has a tanning bed....you can tell by the small patches of whiteness around his eyes. He has several properties in southern climes where you look sickly without a coat of tan....it's a Boomer thing.

Since the losers...er, Democrats can't come up with any critique of substance, they're reduced to harrumphing about his tan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even Repubs are beginning to see the Trump-Russian connection.

Torture????

OK...here's another lesson for you, you dunce.



From “Magnifico: The Brilliant Life and Violent Times of Lorenzo De Medici,” by Miles Unger, p. 227-228.

An incident recorded by the diarist Luca Landucci vividly illustrated the dangers awaiting those who threatened bodily harm to the leading citizens of the regime:
27th September [1481]. A certain hermit came to the house of Lorenzo de’ Medici at the Poggio a Caiano; and the servants declared that he intended to murder Lorenzo, so they took him and sent him to the Bargello, and he was put to the rack.
15th October. This hermit died at Santa Maria Novella, having been tortured in various ways. It was said that they skinned the soles of his feet, and then burnt them by holding them in the fire till the fat dripped off them; after which they set him upright and made him walk across the hall; and these things caused his death. Opinions were divided as to whether he were guilty or innocent.


Understand now, pantywaist?

You're quoting someone from 1481 on torture today? You don't get it do you? You just just equated waterboarding to do a beer chug in college. You've go to be the dumbest person I've ever met.

Face it.
You've been force-fed propaganda and aren't smart enough to question it.
In other words, a reliable Democrat voter.

There has never been any torture by the US government. Never.

Now...watch me ram your words down your throat:

1. [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=117666&styleid=2



2. Originally Posted by Holder's Justice Department
[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) . . . .
Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...partments-torture-hypocrisy/andrew-c-mccarthy



You feel really stupid about now, huh?

No, I don't feel stupid...and using loaded comments doesn't change that. It's like me saying, "Do you post here because you are too lazy to get a job or too stupid for anyone to hire you?"

Waterboarding is torture, and for you to equate it to a beer chug is fucking comical.

"Waterboarding is torture, and for you to equate it to a beer chug is fucking comical."

But one of your masters said it isn't.

1. [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=117666&styleid=2



2. Originally Posted by Holder's Justice Department

[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) . . . .

Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...partments-torture-hypocrisy/andrew-c-mccarthy


So you must be one of their drones not smart enough to keep up with the propaganda.


And...clearly, as both enhanced technique of waterboarding and the college prank of chugalug both have exactly the same 20-40 second deprivation of oxygen.....
...either one is torture,or neither are.


QED....you're simply a robot of the Left.

True?

Another loaded piece of crap. My masters? I don't have a master and Eric Holder was a complete douche. Either you are an idiot willfully or you have some kind of mental defect, which is it? Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't.

You see how that works rightard?

Did you vote for Obama?
Then you voted for those he put in charge of you, hence, Holder, your master.



"Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't."

So you agree that there is no physiological differentiation?
Excellent.

So, are they both torture, or are neither?

 

[Tom Horn]

Trump obviously has a tanning bed....you can tell by the small patches of whiteness around his eyes. He has several properties in southern climes where you look sickly without a coat of tan....it's a Boomer thing.

Since the losers...er, Democrats can't come up with any critique of substance, they're reduced to harrumphing about his tan.

One of my favorite "meme girl" hypocrisies.....I'd like to wear a moustache again but I can't without being told it's a "70's porn look"....

 

[Lewdog]

Even Repubs are beginning to see the Trump-Russian connection.

You're quoting someone from 1481 on torture today? You don't get it do you? You just just equated waterboarding to do a beer chug in college. You've go to be the dumbest person I've ever met.

Face it.
You've been force-fed propaganda and aren't smart enough to question it.
In other words, a reliable Democrat voter.

There has never been any torture by the US government. Never.

Now...watch me ram your words down your throat:

1. [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=117666&styleid=2



2. Originally Posted by Holder's Justice Department
[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) . . . .
Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...partments-torture-hypocrisy/andrew-c-mccarthy



You feel really stupid about now, huh?

No, I don't feel stupid...and using loaded comments doesn't change that. It's like me saying, "Do you post here because you are too lazy to get a job or too stupid for anyone to hire you?"

Waterboarding is torture, and for you to equate it to a beer chug is fucking comical.

"Waterboarding is torture, and for you to equate it to a beer chug is fucking comical."

But one of your masters said it isn't.

1. [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=117666&styleid=2



2. Originally Posted by Holder's Justice Department

[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) . . . .

Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...partments-torture-hypocrisy/andrew-c-mccarthy


So you must be one of their drones not smart enough to keep up with the propaganda.


And...clearly, as both enhanced technique of waterboarding and the college prank of chugalug both have exactly the same 20-40 second deprivation of oxygen.....
...either one is torture,or neither are.


QED....you're simply a robot of the Left.

True?

Another loaded piece of crap. My masters? I don't have a master and Eric Holder was a complete douche. Either you are an idiot willfully or you have some kind of mental defect, which is it? Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't.

You see how that works rightard?

Did you vote for Obama?
Then you voted for those he put in charge of you, hence, Holder, your master.



"Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't."

So you agree that there is no physiological differentiation?
Excellent.

So, are they both torture, or are neither?

No I didn't vote for Obama twit. Quit assuming.

And no I didn't agree they have no physiological difference... but to ignore the idea that one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not, is a huge fundamental flaw in your argument. Of course you are too righty brainwashed to understand that.

Hell some people like to be chained up and beaten... does that mean if I chained you up and beat you that isn't against the law? Do you NOT understand the difference?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even Repubs are beginning to see the Trump-Russian connection.

Face it.
You've been force-fed propaganda and aren't smart enough to question it.
In other words, a reliable Democrat voter.

There has never been any torture by the US government. Never.

Now...watch me ram your words down your throat:

1. [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=117666&styleid=2



2. Originally Posted by Holder's Justice Department
[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) . . . .
Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...partments-torture-hypocrisy/andrew-c-mccarthy



You feel really stupid about now, huh?

No, I don't feel stupid...and using loaded comments doesn't change that. It's like me saying, "Do you post here because you are too lazy to get a job or too stupid for anyone to hire you?"

Waterboarding is torture, and for you to equate it to a beer chug is fucking comical.

"Waterboarding is torture, and for you to equate it to a beer chug is fucking comical."

But one of your masters said it isn't.

1. [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=117666&styleid=2



2. Originally Posted by Holder's Justice Department

[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) . . . .

Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...partments-torture-hypocrisy/andrew-c-mccarthy


So you must be one of their drones not smart enough to keep up with the propaganda.


And...clearly, as both enhanced technique of waterboarding and the college prank of chugalug both have exactly the same 20-40 second deprivation of oxygen.....
...either one is torture,or neither are.


QED....you're simply a robot of the Left.

True?

Another loaded piece of crap. My masters? I don't have a master and Eric Holder was a complete douche. Either you are an idiot willfully or you have some kind of mental defect, which is it? Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't.

You see how that works rightard?

Did you vote for Obama?
Then you voted for those he put in charge of you, hence, Holder, your master.



"Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't."

So you agree that there is no physiological differentiation?
Excellent.

So, are they both torture, or are neither?

No I didn't vote for Obama twit. Quit assuming.

And no I didn't agree they have no physiological difference... but to ignore the idea that one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not, is a huge fundamental flaw in your argument. Of course you are too righty brainwashed to understand that.

Hell some people like to be chained up and beaten... does that mean if I chained you up and beat you that isn't against the law? Do you NOT understand the difference?

1. "...one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not..."
Wrong again.
Waterboarding, when used to train our soldiers, cannot be stopped at any time.


2. As you realized, there is no physiological difference between waterboarding and chugalug.

3. And, as a great deal of significant intelligence was gained by enhanced interrogation, it is recognized as a defense of the American people.


4. I only deal in facts and truth.
That's why I'm never wrong.

Let's summarize:
Waterboarding is considered by many on the left to be torture only because it occurred during the hated Bush administration.

Had it occurred during the Obama administration it would be lauded as an "effective, non-lethal, humane information gathering technique."


5. Wasn't it fun proving that you have all the discrimination ability of Don Quixote?
You didn't understand that any more than you understand waterboarding, did you.

 

[Lewdog]

Even Repubs are beginning to see the Trump-Russian connection.

No, I don't feel stupid...and using loaded comments doesn't change that. It's like me saying, "Do you post here because you are too lazy to get a job or too stupid for anyone to hire you?"

Waterboarding is torture, and for you to equate it to a beer chug is fucking comical.

"Waterboarding is torture, and for you to equate it to a beer chug is fucking comical."

But one of your masters said it isn't.

1. [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=117666&styleid=2



2. Originally Posted by Holder's Justice Department

[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) . . . .

Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...partments-torture-hypocrisy/andrew-c-mccarthy


So you must be one of their drones not smart enough to keep up with the propaganda.


And...clearly, as both enhanced technique of waterboarding and the college prank of chugalug both have exactly the same 20-40 second deprivation of oxygen.....
...either one is torture,or neither are.


QED....you're simply a robot of the Left.

True?

Another loaded piece of crap. My masters? I don't have a master and Eric Holder was a complete douche. Either you are an idiot willfully or you have some kind of mental defect, which is it? Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't.

You see how that works rightard?

Did you vote for Obama?
Then you voted for those he put in charge of you, hence, Holder, your master.



"Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't."

So you agree that there is no physiological differentiation?
Excellent.

So, are they both torture, or are neither?

No I didn't vote for Obama twit. Quit assuming.

And no I didn't agree they have no physiological difference... but to ignore the idea that one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not, is a huge fundamental flaw in your argument. Of course you are too righty brainwashed to understand that.

Hell some people like to be chained up and beaten... does that mean if I chained you up and beat you that isn't against the law? Do you NOT understand the difference?

1. "...one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not..."
Wrong again.
Waterboarding, when used to train our soldiers, cannot be stopped at any time.


2. As you realized, there is no physiological difference between waterboarding and chugalug.

3. And, as a great deal of significant intelligence was gained by enhanced interrogation, it is recognized as a defense of the American people.


4. I only deal in facts and truth.
That's why I'm never wrong.

Let's summarize:
Waterboarding is considered by many on the left to be torture only because it occurred during the hated Bush administration.

Had it occurred during the Obama administration it would be lauded as an "effective, non-lethal, humane information gathering technique."


5. Wasn't it fun proving that you have all the discrimination ability of Don Quixote?
You didn't understand that any more than you understand waterboarding, did you.

You can ask yourself question that you can answer. Congrats! I'll reiterate, if you can understand that that word means... you are the dumbest poster on this forum.

I don't care what you think you know. But professionals have said numerous times, and even the new Secretary of Defense agrees, torturing people for information is worthless.

'I've never found it to be useful.' He said, 'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.'"

Donald Trump 'surprised' by Mattis waterboarding comments - CNNPolitics.com

But you go right ahead and keep thinking you are right all the time. You are good at playing D&D... that is dumb and delusional.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Waterboarding is torture, and for you to equate it to a beer chug is fucking comical."

But one of your masters said it isn't.

1. [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=117666&styleid=2



2. Originally Posted by Holder's Justice Department

[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) . . . .

Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...partments-torture-hypocrisy/andrew-c-mccarthy


So you must be one of their drones not smart enough to keep up with the propaganda.


And...clearly, as both enhanced technique of waterboarding and the college prank of chugalug both have exactly the same 20-40 second deprivation of oxygen.....
...either one is torture,or neither are.


QED....you're simply a robot of the Left.

True?

Another loaded piece of crap. My masters? I don't have a master and Eric Holder was a complete douche. Either you are an idiot willfully or you have some kind of mental defect, which is it? Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't.

You see how that works rightard?

Did you vote for Obama?
Then you voted for those he put in charge of you, hence, Holder, your master.



"Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't."

So you agree that there is no physiological differentiation?
Excellent.

So, are they both torture, or are neither?

No I didn't vote for Obama twit. Quit assuming.

And no I didn't agree they have no physiological difference... but to ignore the idea that one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not, is a huge fundamental flaw in your argument. Of course you are too righty brainwashed to understand that.

Hell some people like to be chained up and beaten... does that mean if I chained you up and beat you that isn't against the law? Do you NOT understand the difference?

1. "...one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not..."
Wrong again.
Waterboarding, when used to train our soldiers, cannot be stopped at any time.


2. As you realized, there is no physiological difference between waterboarding and chugalug.

3. And, as a great deal of significant intelligence was gained by enhanced interrogation, it is recognized as a defense of the American people.


4. I only deal in facts and truth.
That's why I'm never wrong.

Let's summarize:
Waterboarding is considered by many on the left to be torture only because it occurred during the hated Bush administration.

Had it occurred during the Obama administration it would be lauded as an "effective, non-lethal, humane information gathering technique."


5. Wasn't it fun proving that you have all the discrimination ability of Don Quixote?
You didn't understand that any more than you understand waterboarding, did you.

You can ask yourself question that you can answer. Congrats! I'll reiterate, if you can understand that that word means... you are the dumbest poster on this forum.

I don't care what you think you know. But professionals have said numerous times, and even the new Secretary of Defense agrees, torturing people for information is worthless.

'I've never found it to be useful.' He said, 'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.'"

Donald Trump 'surprised' by Mattis waterboarding comments - CNNPolitics.com

But you go right ahead and keep thinking you are right all the time. You are good at playing D&D... that is dumb and delusional.

1. " torturing people for information is worthless.'
A moot point, because, as you have found, the US never tortures....unless chugalug is torture.


2. "But professionals have said numerous times, and even the new Secretary of Defense agrees, torturing people for information is worthless."
This is why you shouldn't allow others to do your thinking for you: you're wrong again.

Let's prove it:

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.

“Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

“Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question,” Panetta said.


Panetta’s comments hours after Attorney General Eric Holder defended as lawful Tuesday the intelligence gathering and raid that resulted in the death of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden."
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/05/03/...d-detainees-was-used-to-track-down-bin-laden/

Turns out you're just chock-full of incorrect Leftist talking points, huh?

In your face, boyyyyeeeeeee!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Waterboarding is torture, and for you to equate it to a beer chug is fucking comical."

But one of your masters said it isn't.

1. [Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=117666&styleid=2



2. Originally Posted by Holder's Justice Department

[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) . . . .

Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...partments-torture-hypocrisy/andrew-c-mccarthy


So you must be one of their drones not smart enough to keep up with the propaganda.


And...clearly, as both enhanced technique of waterboarding and the college prank of chugalug both have exactly the same 20-40 second deprivation of oxygen.....
...either one is torture,or neither are.


QED....you're simply a robot of the Left.

True?

Another loaded piece of crap. My masters? I don't have a master and Eric Holder was a complete douche. Either you are an idiot willfully or you have some kind of mental defect, which is it? Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't.

You see how that works rightard?

Did you vote for Obama?
Then you voted for those he put in charge of you, hence, Holder, your master.



"Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't."

So you agree that there is no physiological differentiation?
Excellent.

So, are they both torture, or are neither?

No I didn't vote for Obama twit. Quit assuming.

And no I didn't agree they have no physiological difference... but to ignore the idea that one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not, is a huge fundamental flaw in your argument. Of course you are too righty brainwashed to understand that.

Hell some people like to be chained up and beaten... does that mean if I chained you up and beat you that isn't against the law? Do you NOT understand the difference?

1. "...one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not..."
Wrong again.
Waterboarding, when used to train our soldiers, cannot be stopped at any time.


2. As you realized, there is no physiological difference between waterboarding and chugalug.

3. And, as a great deal of significant intelligence was gained by enhanced interrogation, it is recognized as a defense of the American people.


4. I only deal in facts and truth.
That's why I'm never wrong.

Let's summarize:
Waterboarding is considered by many on the left to be torture only because it occurred during the hated Bush administration.

Had it occurred during the Obama administration it would be lauded as an "effective, non-lethal, humane information gathering technique."


5. Wasn't it fun proving that you have all the discrimination ability of Don Quixote?
You didn't understand that any more than you understand waterboarding, did you.

You can ask yourself question that you can answer. Congrats! I'll reiterate, if you can understand that that word means... you are the dumbest poster on this forum.

I don't care what you think you know. But professionals have said numerous times, and even the new Secretary of Defense agrees, torturing people for information is worthless.

'I've never found it to be useful.' He said, 'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.'"

Donald Trump 'surprised' by Mattis waterboarding comments - CNNPolitics.com

But you go right ahead and keep thinking you are right all the time. You are good at playing D&D... that is dumb and delusional.

"But you go right ahead and keep thinking you are right all the time."

You just helped prove it.

 

[Lewdog]

Another loaded piece of crap. My masters? I don't have a master and Eric Holder was a complete douche. Either you are an idiot willfully or you have some kind of mental defect, which is it? Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't.

You see how that works rightard?

Did you vote for Obama?
Then you voted for those he put in charge of you, hence, Holder, your master.



"Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't."

So you agree that there is no physiological differentiation?
Excellent.

So, are they both torture, or are neither?

No I didn't vote for Obama twit. Quit assuming.

And no I didn't agree they have no physiological difference... but to ignore the idea that one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not, is a huge fundamental flaw in your argument. Of course you are too righty brainwashed to understand that.

Hell some people like to be chained up and beaten... does that mean if I chained you up and beat you that isn't against the law? Do you NOT understand the difference?

1. "...one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not..."
Wrong again.
Waterboarding, when used to train our soldiers, cannot be stopped at any time.


2. As you realized, there is no physiological difference between waterboarding and chugalug.

3. And, as a great deal of significant intelligence was gained by enhanced interrogation, it is recognized as a defense of the American people.


4. I only deal in facts and truth.
That's why I'm never wrong.

Let's summarize:
Waterboarding is considered by many on the left to be torture only because it occurred during the hated Bush administration.

Had it occurred during the Obama administration it would be lauded as an "effective, non-lethal, humane information gathering technique."


5. Wasn't it fun proving that you have all the discrimination ability of Don Quixote?
You didn't understand that any more than you understand waterboarding, did you.

You can ask yourself question that you can answer. Congrats! I'll reiterate, if you can understand that that word means... you are the dumbest poster on this forum.

I don't care what you think you know. But professionals have said numerous times, and even the new Secretary of Defense agrees, torturing people for information is worthless.

'I've never found it to be useful.' He said, 'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.'"

Donald Trump 'surprised' by Mattis waterboarding comments - CNNPolitics.com

But you go right ahead and keep thinking you are right all the time. You are good at playing D&D... that is dumb and delusional.

1. " torturing people for information is worthless.'
A moot point, because, as you have found, the US never tortures....unless chugalug is torture.


2. "But professionals have said numerous times, and even the new Secretary of Defense agrees, torturing people for information is worthless."
This is why you shouldn't allow others to do your thinking for you: you're wrong again.

Let's prove it:

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.

“Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

“Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question,” Panetta said.


Panetta’s comments hours after Attorney General Eric Holder defended as lawful Tuesday the intelligence gathering and raid that resulted in the death of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden."
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/05/03/...d-detainees-was-used-to-track-down-bin-laden/

Turns out you're just chock-full of incorrect Leftist talking points, huh?

In your face, boyyyyeeeeeee!!!!

Why do you keep quoting Eric Holder? What does he matter in this?

You're NEW Sec. of Defense and whom many on this board is saying is a stud pick said... torture is useless.

You tell me I'm letting others speak for me and yet you keep using what others say for you. You really aren't very bright are you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you vote for Obama?
Then you voted for those he put in charge of you, hence, Holder, your master.



"Beer chugging and waterboarding are NOT the same. One of the major differences, that you can't seem to fucking grasp, is one is done willfully and a person can stop, the other isn't."

So you agree that there is no physiological differentiation?
Excellent.

So, are they both torture, or are neither?

No I didn't vote for Obama twit. Quit assuming.

And no I didn't agree they have no physiological difference... but to ignore the idea that one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not, is a huge fundamental flaw in your argument. Of course you are too righty brainwashed to understand that.

Hell some people like to be chained up and beaten... does that mean if I chained you up and beat you that isn't against the law? Do you NOT understand the difference?

1. "...one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not..."
Wrong again.
Waterboarding, when used to train our soldiers, cannot be stopped at any time.


2. As you realized, there is no physiological difference between waterboarding and chugalug.

3. And, as a great deal of significant intelligence was gained by enhanced interrogation, it is recognized as a defense of the American people.


4. I only deal in facts and truth.
That's why I'm never wrong.

Let's summarize:
Waterboarding is considered by many on the left to be torture only because it occurred during the hated Bush administration.

Had it occurred during the Obama administration it would be lauded as an "effective, non-lethal, humane information gathering technique."


5. Wasn't it fun proving that you have all the discrimination ability of Don Quixote?
You didn't understand that any more than you understand waterboarding, did you.

You can ask yourself question that you can answer. Congrats! I'll reiterate, if you can understand that that word means... you are the dumbest poster on this forum.

I don't care what you think you know. But professionals have said numerous times, and even the new Secretary of Defense agrees, torturing people for information is worthless.

'I've never found it to be useful.' He said, 'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.'"

Donald Trump 'surprised' by Mattis waterboarding comments - CNNPolitics.com

But you go right ahead and keep thinking you are right all the time. You are good at playing D&D... that is dumb and delusional.

1. " torturing people for information is worthless.'
A moot point, because, as you have found, the US never tortures....unless chugalug is torture.


2. "But professionals have said numerous times, and even the new Secretary of Defense agrees, torturing people for information is worthless."
This is why you shouldn't allow others to do your thinking for you: you're wrong again.

Let's prove it:

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.

“Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

“Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question,” Panetta said.


Panetta’s comments hours after Attorney General Eric Holder defended as lawful Tuesday the intelligence gathering and raid that resulted in the death of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden."
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/05/03/...d-detainees-was-used-to-track-down-bin-laden/

Turns out you're just chock-full of incorrect Leftist talking points, huh?

In your face, boyyyyeeeeeee!!!!

Why do you keep quoting Eric Holder? What does he matter in this?

You're NEW Sec. of Defense and whom many on this board is saying is a stud pick said... torture is useless.

You tell me I'm letting others speak for me and yet you keep using what others say for you. You really aren't very bright are you?

"Why do you keep quoting Eric Holder? What does he matter in this?"

I love how you don't even wait for me to prove how stupid you are....you prove it yourself.

It was the Obamunists who pretended that waterboarding is torture....threatening to indict those under Bush who engaged in enhanced interrogation....


....and guess what position Holder held?




I used to say folks like you couldn't be this stupid.

Guess I underestimated your stupidity quotient.

 

[PoliticalChic]

".... torture is useless."

Can't you read?

Try again:
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.

“Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

“Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question,” Panetta said.


Panetta’s comments hours after Attorney General Eric Holder defended as lawful Tuesday the intelligence gathering and raid that resulted in the death of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden."
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/05/03/...d-detainees-was-used-to-track-down-bin-laden/



Better find out who Leon Panetta is so you don't look this dumb next time.

 

[JimH52]

Trump obviously has a tanning bed....you can tell by the small patches of whiteness around his eyes. He has several properties in southern climes where you look sickly without a coat of tan....it's a Boomer thing.

Since the losers...er, Democrats can't come up with any critique of substance, they're reduced to harrumphing about his tan.

Ah, we have been calling him Orange since he announced.

 

[American_Jihad]

...

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

Tired of a President who bows to other potentates???



Check this out:
"Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense
....James N. Mattis to be secretary of defense, according to people familiar with the decision, nominating a former senior military officer who led operations across the Middle East to run the Pentagon less than four years after he hung up his uniform."
Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense



A bit of insight into who this man is:
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
One of the rules Maj. Gen. James Mattis gave his Marines to live by in Iraq, as quoted in Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (2006) by Thomas E. Ricks; as excerpted in Armed Forces Journal (August 2006)


The enemies of America: beware.

General Mattis has been critical of Trump sucking Vladimir Putin's cock. That's one thing that I like about Mattis.

ComicRelief chimes in?

Wait....I didn't mean that as your new avi.



Please don't ever change your avi....

...I so love how you make a fool of yourself every time you post.

In other words, you don't like what General Mattis said about Trump and Putin. So you have to try to deflect because you're an intellectually dishonest Repug bitch.

I get it, Repug lightweight.

 

[basquebromance]

"I consider ISIS nothing more than an excuse for Iran to continue its mischief. Iran is not an enemy of ISIS. They have a lot to gain from the turmoil in the region that ISIS creates." - Mad Dog

 

[basquebromance]

‘Mad Dog’ Mattis Is Bad News For The Iran Deal

 

[PoliticalChic]

Trump obviously has a tanning bed....you can tell by the small patches of whiteness around his eyes. He has several properties in southern climes where you look sickly without a coat of tan....it's a Boomer thing.

Since the losers...er, Democrats can't come up with any critique of substance, they're reduced to harrumphing about his tan.

Ah, we have been calling him Orange since he announced.

"...we have been calling him Orange..."

We? You have a tapeworm?



Clearly you intend 'orange clown' as what passes for an intellectual and incisive critique among you losers,....er, Leftists.

It isn't.

My post, reminding you that referring to Obama as 'the brown clown' would have reeked with as much juvenile atavism.....which is why I have never done so. I pose actual fact based critiques.



And...I reminded that folks like you are so fearful of not showing the proper deference for your lord and master that you'd shake with fear at even the thought that you might slip and fail to kiss his ring.

True, isn't it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tired of a President who bows to other potentates???



Check this out:
"Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense
....James N. Mattis to be secretary of defense, according to people familiar with the decision, nominating a former senior military officer who led operations across the Middle East to run the Pentagon less than four years after he hung up his uniform."
Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense



A bit of insight into who this man is:
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
One of the rules Maj. Gen. James Mattis gave his Marines to live by in Iraq, as quoted in Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (2006) by Thomas E. Ricks; as excerpted in Armed Forces Journal (August 2006)


The enemies of America: beware.

General Mattis has been critical of Trump sucking Vladimir Putin's cock. That's one thing that I like about Mattis.

ComicRelief chimes in?

Wait....I didn't mean that as your new avi.



Please don't ever change your avi....

...I so love how you make a fool of yourself every time you post.

In other words, you don't like what General Mattis said about Trump and Putin. So you have to try to deflect because you're an intellectually dishonest Repug bitch.

I get it, Repug lightweight.

"In other words,..."

There are not other words necessary, nor appropriate.
I meant exactly the words I used...
These:
Please don't ever change your avi....

...I so love how you make a fool of yourself every time you post.


I'm merely point out that your every post brings a smile to my face, as your avi puts your foot in your mouth!





I love it! So....never forget:
Please don't ever change your avi....

...I so love how you make a fool of yourself every time you post.

 

[Lewdog]

No I didn't vote for Obama twit. Quit assuming.

And no I didn't agree they have no physiological difference... but to ignore the idea that one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not, is a huge fundamental flaw in your argument. Of course you are too righty brainwashed to understand that.

Hell some people like to be chained up and beaten... does that mean if I chained you up and beat you that isn't against the law? Do you NOT understand the difference?

1. "...one is voluntary and can be stopped at any time and the other is not..."
Wrong again.
Waterboarding, when used to train our soldiers, cannot be stopped at any time.


2. As you realized, there is no physiological difference between waterboarding and chugalug.

3. And, as a great deal of significant intelligence was gained by enhanced interrogation, it is recognized as a defense of the American people.


4. I only deal in facts and truth.
That's why I'm never wrong.

Let's summarize:
Waterboarding is considered by many on the left to be torture only because it occurred during the hated Bush administration.

Had it occurred during the Obama administration it would be lauded as an "effective, non-lethal, humane information gathering technique."


5. Wasn't it fun proving that you have all the discrimination ability of Don Quixote?
You didn't understand that any more than you understand waterboarding, did you.

You can ask yourself question that you can answer. Congrats! I'll reiterate, if you can understand that that word means... you are the dumbest poster on this forum.

I don't care what you think you know. But professionals have said numerous times, and even the new Secretary of Defense agrees, torturing people for information is worthless.

'I've never found it to be useful.' He said, 'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.'"

Donald Trump 'surprised' by Mattis waterboarding comments - CNNPolitics.com

But you go right ahead and keep thinking you are right all the time. You are good at playing D&D... that is dumb and delusional.

1. " torturing people for information is worthless.'
A moot point, because, as you have found, the US never tortures....unless chugalug is torture.


2. "But professionals have said numerous times, and even the new Secretary of Defense agrees, torturing people for information is worthless."
This is why you shouldn't allow others to do your thinking for you: you're wrong again.

Let's prove it:

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.

“Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

“Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question,” Panetta said.


Panetta’s comments hours after Attorney General Eric Holder defended as lawful Tuesday the intelligence gathering and raid that resulted in the death of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden."
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/05/03/...d-detainees-was-used-to-track-down-bin-laden/

Turns out you're just chock-full of incorrect Leftist talking points, huh?

In your face, boyyyyeeeeeee!!!!

Why do you keep quoting Eric Holder? What does he matter in this?

You're NEW Sec. of Defense and whom many on this board is saying is a stud pick said... torture is useless.

You tell me I'm letting others speak for me and yet you keep using what others say for you. You really aren't very bright are you?

"Why do you keep quoting Eric Holder? What does he matter in this?"

I love how you don't even wait for me to prove how stupid you are....you prove it yourself.

It was the Obamunists who pretended that waterboarding is torture....threatening to indict those under Bush who engaged in enhanced interrogation....


....and guess what position Holder held?




I used to say folks like you couldn't be this stupid.

Guess I underestimated your stupidity quotient.

For Christ Sakes are you still spouting off at the mouth with second hand information and passing it off as your opinion? Didn't you just try to say something about me doing that a couple posts ago?