BEAUTIFUL....let's rock!
Boehner "man tan" is a bone head.....
Obama Confronts Republicans
Posted Fri, 04/24/2009 - 12:43 by carol white
Ryan Grimm in a Huffington Post headline story indicates that not only is President Obama putting his weight behind the reconciliation-option for passage of a health-care reform bill (ie eliminating the filibuster option in the Senate) but he has expressed anger at Republican obstructionism. Obama Repeatedly Reminds House GOP Of Their Zero Stimulus Votes.
In a meeting with House Republicans at the White House Thursday, President Obama reminded the minority that the last time he reached out to them, they reacted with zero votes -- twice -- for his stimulus package. And then he reminded them again. And again. And again.
Obama also offered payback for that goose egg. A major overhaul of the health care system, he told the Republican leadership, would be done using a legislative process known as reconciliation, meaning that the GOP won't be able to filibuster it.
Congress has until October 15 to pass health care or student lending reform under the normal process. If it doesn't, reconciliation can be used to eliminate the 60-vote requirement.
http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/node/4128
The Republicans will finally be rid of the filibuster they tried to hard to get rid of!
Bring on nationalized healthcare through the backdoor for Obama doesn't have the votes to do it any other way. A weak move showing Obama's inability to compromise and that he's a true socialist using techniques his friends Chavez and Castro would approve of.
This does not surprise me and I anticipate Obama will use it many times.
Quote from: HazMatCFO on April 25, 2009, 04:42:33 AM
Bring on nationalized healthcare through the backdoor for Obama doesn't have the votes to do it any other way. A weak move showing Obama's inability to compromise and that he's a true socialist using techniques his friends Chavez and Castro would approve of.
This does not surprise me and I anticipate Obama will use it many times.
Wow, that's rich considering the Republicans have been the blockade party since Jan 20th. You have been listening to rhetoric being spewed forth by John 'Boner' Boehner and Eric 'I acquiesce to all that is Boss-Rush' Cantor, right?
You sound like Gweed now.
The Republicans still can't stomach the fact that they are no longer in power in the executive and the legislative. They remind me a little of a child holding his or her ears and screaming 'lalalalala I can't hear you lalalala'....
Keep in mind that Bush used this tactic (reconciliation) several times, mainly to push through his tax cuts. Does that make him a socialist? Hmm? I'm waiting....
Quote from: HazMatCFO on April 25, 2009, 04:42:33 AM
Bring on nationalized healthcare through the backdoor for Obama doesn't have the votes to do it any other way. A weak move showing Obama's inability to compromise and that he's a true socialist using techniques his friends Chavez and Castro would approve of.
This does not surprise me and I anticipate Obama will use it many times.
LOL, only a solialist like those two would require an up or down vote on a law and a majority in favor to pass it. Everything deserves an up or down vote right? Man, I never knew how communist all the republicans were who called for up or down votes on everything.
"Communist"
"Fascist"
"Socialist"
The Republicans have tried tossing every mudball in the arsenal in the full knowledge that none of them are true, yet they resonate with the base. Maybe their fascination is with 'ist', so here are some suggestions:
Maoist
Anarchist
Royalist
Defeatist
Elitist
So long as the base doesn't know the meanings of any of these words, their leadership will continue to use them. They just sound nasty. Real socialists scoff at the attempt to connect President Obama with socialism, but the base doesn't know that and their leadership will happily keep them uninformed.
Jon Stewart cut to the chase when he said, "You lost. It's supposed to taste like a s**t sandwich!"
When did Obama really reach out to the republican party? He met with them, sure. Did he make any major compromises? No.
When someone someone is vehemently opposed to something, calling them "pal" and shaking their hand is not going to chnge a single vote.
I enjoy both parties using the same tactics and when they use it, it's funny or cool but when the other guy uses it, it's a bad idea. Both parties are this way.
Obama only has a 24% approval ratings with republicans. Telling them to "do it my way or else" is not going to improve that number. Partisanship is alive and well and unless everyone in DC gets their head out of their A$$ (Obama included) it's not going to improve and the disenfranchisement with our elected officials will continue, no matter which group of corrupt ner-do-wells is "in the majority"
Quote from: Ed W on April 25, 2009, 10:22:28 AM
"Communist"
"Fascist"
"Socialist"
The Republicans have tried tossing every mudball in the arsenal in the full knowledge that none of them are true, yet they resonate with the base. Maybe their fascination is with 'ist', so here are some suggestions:
Maoist
Anarchist
Royalist
Defeatist
Elitist
So long as the base doesn't know the meanings of any of these words, their leadership will continue to use them. They just sound nasty. Real socialists scoff at the attempt to connect President Obama with socialism, but the base doesn't know that and their leadership will happily keep them uninformed.
Oh, but when dems accused Bush of being a fascist, crickets from your keyboard (or are only dems smart enough to know the definition of fascism):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEcBjpsP1bU
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2009, 10:56:06 AM
Oh, but when dems accused Bush of being a fascist, crickets from your keyboard (or are only dems smart enough to know the definition of fascism):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEcBjpsP1bU
Yeah I don't know why FOTD tries to say "Bush did it" like it is some sort of defense. I just laugh at all the morons out there calling for dismantling things like the filibuster. Just giving somebody worse down the road tools to abuse. Basically the 50% vote has to do with the fact that it is a budget issue not banning fillibusters. I haven't heard any calls to remove the filibuster like the Republicans did.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 25, 2009, 10:55:32 AM
When did Obama really reach out to the republican party? He met with them, sure. Did he make any major compromises? No.
When someone someone is vehemently opposed to something, calling them "pal" and shaking their hand is not going to chnge a single vote.
I enjoy both parties using the same tactics and when they use it, it's funny or cool but when the other guy uses it, it's a bad idea. Both parties are this way.
Obama only has a 24% approval ratings with republicans. Telling them to "do it my way or else" is not going to improve that number. Partisanship is alive and well and unless everyone in DC gets their head out of their A$$ (Obama included) it's not going to improve and the disenfranchisement with our elected officials will continue, no matter which group of corrupt ner-do-wells is "in the majority"
The Republicans were really trying to compromise and help when they release their budget proposal that had no numbers in it http://rawstory.com/news/2008/GOP_budget_proposal_contains_no_numbers_0327.html (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/GOP_budget_proposal_contains_no_numbers_0327.html) . Guido is a perfect example of the (current Republicans). Do you seriously think he would listen or compromise to ANYTHING that Obama put forth. Guido will be the first to say HECK NO. So just because you are dealing with a few hundred Guido's doesn't mean the attempt wasn't made. Also, Obama has 24% percent approval rating with Republicans basically before he was even President.
Bush's approval rating was like 30% FOR EVERYBODY. This is what I am hearing from Republicans. I hear nothing about Obama not compromising (even though it is really the congress and senate but fair enough).
You would think that SOME republican would have said Obama won't compromise in the news.
http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22obama+won%27t+compromise%22 (http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22obama+won%27t+compromise%22)
http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22obama+won%27t+listen%22 (http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22obama+won%27t+listen%22)
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=hpR&q=%22obama%20won%27t%20be%20reasonable%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=hpR&q=%22obama%20won%27t%20be%20reasonable%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn)
It is nice that you care whether or not the Democrats compromise but apparently none of the Republicans care enough to say anything about it in the news.
Over half the country now believes we are headed in the right direction for a change from the low teens just 97 days ago.
Why do mainstream conservatives have so much trouble standing up to and denouncing the far-right elements within their own coalition: they find them very useful. Whacky conspiracy theories are a handy way of stirring up working-class resentment against progressive reformers.
That torturous administration left us close to fascism teetering on a one party system. Damn Gweedoe, you are close to correct but, like everything you seem to do, approached the accusation from the rear.
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2009, 10:56:06 AM
Oh, but when dems accused Bush of being a fascist, crickets from your keyboard (or are only dems smart enough to know the definition of fascism):
Are you referring to the President Bush who signed off on torture, deliberately mislead the American people into two wars, allowed no-bid contracts, deprived citizens of their rights, and on and on and on? That one?
He's some sort of 'ist', all right. But words are insufficient.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 25, 2009, 10:55:32 AM
When did Obama really reach out to the republican party? He met with them, sure. Did he make any major compromises? No.
I think he made plenty of compromises. He allowed them earmarks in the budget bill, and many of them went straight home after voting "no" to brag about the bacon.
In the stimulus compromise, health care for unemployed workers was slashed, $30 billion was cut in state aid for social services, and even the "Making Work Pay" rebate was cut from $500 to $400. All of this was done to provide $70 billion for raising the AMT. That was 10% of the entire stimulus package; the Republicans got these substantial compromises and it resulted in less money going to the poor and unemployed in order to benefit employed folks about to hit AMT. Not saying that AMT is great, but who needs more help right now in the midst of this mess, someone without a job, or someone making $250,000 a year?
That's a lot of compromise for zero votes.
source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123436825805373367.html
Quote from: Trogdor on April 25, 2009, 01:04:36 PM
The Republicans were really trying to compromise and help when they release their budget proposal that had no numbers in it http://rawstory.com/news/2008/GOP_budget_proposal_contains_no_numbers_0327.html (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/GOP_budget_proposal_contains_no_numbers_0327.html) . Guido is a perfect example of the (current Republicans). Do you seriously think he would listen or compromise to ANYTHING that Obama put forth. Guido will be the first to say HECK NO. So just because you are dealing with a few hundred Guido's doesn't mean the attempt wasn't made. Also, Obama has 24% percent approval rating with Republicans basically before he was even President. Bush's approval rating was like 30% FOR EVERYBODY.
This is what I am hearing from Republicans. I hear nothing about Obama not compromising (even though it is really the congress and senate but fair enough).
You would think that SOME republican would have said Obama won't compromise in the news.
http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22obama+won%27t+compromise%22 (http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22obama+won%27t+compromise%22)
http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22obama+won%27t+listen%22 (http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22obama+won%27t+listen%22)
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=hpR&q=%22obama%20won%27t%20be%20reasonable%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=hpR&q=%22obama%20won%27t%20be%20reasonable%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn)
It is nice that you care whether or not the Democrats compromise but apparently none of the Republicans care enough to say anything about it in the news.
What exactly do you think I should compromise on with Obama?
Abortion? Will not.
Increase taxes on only the "rich"? Will not.
Bailouts? Will not.
Earmarks? Will not.
Amnesty for illegals? Will not.
Universal Healthcare? Will not.
Spreading the wealth around? Will not.
Now, will Obama compromise with me on any of those issues? No.
As for Obama "reaching out" to republicans, please enlighten me as to what you are referring to? Because what I recall about Obama when the repubs were complaining about the stimulus bill is "I won".
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2009, 01:59:38 PM
What exactly do you think I should compromise on with Obama?
Abortion? Will not.
Increase taxes on only the "rich"? Will not.
Bailouts? Will not.
Earmarks? Will not.
Amnesty for illegals? Will not.
Universal Healthcare? Will not.
Spreading the wealth around? Will not.
Now, will Obama compromise with me on any of those issues? No.
As for Obama "reaching out" to republicans, please enlighten me as to what you are referring to? Because what I recall about Obama when the repubs were complaining about the stimulus bill is "I won".
You are in the vast minority....we do live in a democracy. Quit acting like a pathetic loser.
Quote from: Ed W on April 25, 2009, 01:47:35 PM
Are you referring to the President Bush who signed off on torture, deliberately mislead the American people into two wars, allowed no-bid contracts, deprived citizens of their rights, and on and on and on? That one?
He's some sort of 'ist', all right. But words are insufficient.
Who was tortured? Are you referring to those three high level al Qaeda terrorists, one of which participated in killing 3K Americans that were waterboarded? Oooh. I am so deeply saddened for those guys, as is Daniel Pearl's widow. Incidentally, if you haven't heard yet, KSM gave up a plot to attack L.A. and also information that led to numerous arrests of other terrorists. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
Or, are you talking about those mean ol' interrogators that put a caterpillar in a room with some p$ssy terrorist that had a fear of bugs? Is it the Barney theme songf? Is it reading Harry Potter books? Is it sleep deprivation?
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/02/list-of-songs-u.html
Incidentally, I, along with Nancy Pelosi (although she lies in her denial), are also fascists since we both supported these "enhanced interrogation techniques" that worked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
As for Bush misleading the U.S. into two wars? Let's see, who signed the Iraq Liberation Act and first discussed regime change in that country. Forgot, here's a hint, he was the notoriously fascist former dem president Bill Clinton.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm
And here is former dem house minority leader and known fascist Richard Gephardt:
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him [Saddam] from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
No bid contracts? What does that have to do with fascism? At best that sounds like a political payback, kinda like that femi-fascist Diane Feinstein sending $25B worth of business to her husband's firm or the current sitting fascist president ear-marking a cool mil to his wife's hospital?
Depriving citizens (presumably American) of their rights? I guess you are referring to certain elements in the Patriot Act, you know, the statute that was passed overwhelming by those fascist repubs and dems after 3K Americans were incinerated and which was renewed in 2005 with dem support?
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_earmark_wife/2008/03/14/80393.html
Or is it the NSA surveillance program that a fascist federal appeals court that four months ago held was constitutional?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html
Ed, you are spewing democratic underground/dailykos talking points and its rather pathetic and desperate. The fact is, and yes this could be construed as a "talking point", is that there was not one terror attack on American soil after 9/11 for which you and so many others will never give Bush credit for preventing (yes, I expect to hear RW say that the anthrax attacks were terrorism). When I hear folks decry waterboarding or caterpillaring, I personally believe they prefer to have Americans leaping to their deaths from 100 story buildings.
Quote from: FOTD on April 25, 2009, 02:19:46 PM
You are in the vast minority....we do live in a democracy. Quit acting like a pathetic loser.
Care to back that up with some facts? As I recall, more than 50 million people voted against Obama. And incidentally, we don't live in a democracy you moron, we live in a constitutional representative republic. I'm the pathetic loser? Jeez, it's like listening to my three year old.
Which one of these folks is you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bayNhJayn_U
So we give up our rights, engage in torture, and essentially turn our backs on two centuries of liberty in order to get revenge for a terrorist's attack. We give up those very qualities that made the United States that "shining city on the hill" because at it's base, the country was founded on justice and law rather than hatred and revenge.
Sorry, Guido, but when you insist that our enemies can be subjected to various forms of torture, and worse, you're abjectly willing to cheer it on, you only assist those enemies in furthering the destruction of our ideals and our country.
Quote from: Ed W on April 25, 2009, 03:08:31 PM
So we give up our rights, engage in torture, and essentially turn our backs on two centuries of liberty in order to get revenge for a terrorist's attack. We give up those very qualities that made the United States that "shining city on the hill" because at it's base, the country was founded on justice and law rather than hatred and revenge.
Sorry, Guido, but when you insist that our enemies can be subjected to various forms of torture, and worse, you're abjectly willing to cheer it on, you only assist those enemies in furthering the destruction of our ideals and our country.
Wow, what a retort. I present facts, and you present sophistry.
This just in, Obama wants to roll back the right to have counsel present during interrogations:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5214985/Barack-Obama-administration-seeks-to-change-police-questioning-law.html
Given what you have just said about giving up "our rights", I suppose you will call Obama a fascist now. Otherwise, your an abject hypocrite.
Maybe it's just me, but if I found that we could've prevented 9/11 by sticking a cricket in their bed, bouncing them off a rubber wall or slapping them and we didn't, I would be more pissed about that.
I do find it ironic that the acts that the citizens of LA generally oppose the very thing that saved their lives.
If you kill a few thousand people we may eventually kill you, but we want to make sure you're not uncomfortable at any point before then.
RE: -isms
RNC demands that the Democratic party rename itself "Democratic Socialist Party." (http://www.repconcaucus.com/content/proposed_rnc_resolution_recognizing_democrats_march_towards_socialism)
"WHEREAS, the American Heritage Dictionary defines socialism as a system of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy; and
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has outlined their plans to nationalize the banking, financial and healthcare industries; and
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has proposed massive government bailouts for the mortgage and auto industries; and
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has passed trillions of dollars in new government spending, all with strings attached in order to control nearly every aspect of American life; and
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party and its leadership have dedicated themselves to a new taxing objective of direct income redistribution which takes additional taxes from one group of people and gives it in direct cash transfers to another group of people who pay no federal income taxes at all; and
WHEREAS, the American people are crying out for truth, honesty and integrity in politics; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that we the members of the Republican National Committee recognize the Democratic Party's clear and obvious purpose in proposing, passing, and implementing socialist programs through federal legislation; and be it further
RESOLVED, that we the members of the Republican National Committee recognize that the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals; and be it further
RESOLVED, that we the members of the Republican National Committee call on the Democratic Party to be truthful and honest with the American people by acknowledging that they have evolved from a party of tax and spend to a party of tax and nationalize and, therefore, should agree to rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party.
I'm happy that they wanted to use a dictionary definition, but I really think this has to be filed under "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Guido, I'm also happy to see that you're not shrinking from your convictions. Namely that torture should be SOP when dealing with captured terrorists, or those who are captured and are accused of terrorism by the US or its allies.
And, about the Library Tower plot, there're some pretty well documented problems with the official timeline (http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/). Short version: KSM was captured in Spring of 2003, while the Bush Administration claimed he Library Tower plot had folded as early as February of 2002, when the cell leader was captured.
In other words, waterboarding KSM 183 times didn't produce the info we wish it had. Maybe if we'd made it to 185 we could've pulled something actionable out . . .
Quote from: we vs us on April 25, 2009, 05:30:04 PM
Guido, I'm also happy to see that you're not shrinking from your convictions. Namely that torture should be SOP when dealing with captured terrorists, or those who are captured and are accused of terrorism by the US or its allies.
And, about the Library Tower plot, there're some pretty well documented problems with the official timeline (http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/). Short version: KSM was captured in Spring of 2003, while the Bush Administration claimed he Library Tower plot had folded as early as February of 2002, when the cell leader was captured.
In other words, waterboarding KSM 183 times didn't produce the info we wish it had. Maybe if we'd made it to 185 we could've pulled something actionable out . . .
We waterboarded KSM 183 times or was it one time but they made 183 tips of water onto this f'ers face. As far as the timeline, I am simply repeating what the CIA has said, which I think is fairly reliable.
As for supporting "torture", do you really believe placing a caterpillar in the room with a terrorist afraid of bugs and playing the Barney theme song is torture? Gee whiz, we live in a world full of wusses.
Torture was used to try to link Saddam with 9/11.
Now, Guido pipe down before you become invisible and this forum starts resembling the real America.
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2009, 03:18:12 PM
Wow, what a retort. I present facts, and you present sophistry.
Gosh, a few posts back, I was spouting someone's talking points, now it's sophistry. Gotta be one or the other, Guido, not both.
But then, I live in a world bounded by truth and reality, one where morality isn't malleable.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 25, 2009, 04:06:38 PM
Maybe it's just me, but if I found that we could've prevented 9/11 by sticking a cricket in their bed, bouncing them off a rubber wall or slapping them and we didn't, I would be more pissed about that.
I do find it ironic that the acts that the citizens of LA generally oppose the very thing that saved their lives.
If you kill a few thousand people we may eventually kill you, but we want to make sure you're not uncomfortable at any point before then.
You are then one accuser away from the same treatment yourself. If you are fine if that happens to you then you can stand over there with Guido. We are only a few years before they will be waterboarding people to find out who leaked the Wolverine movie. Gingrich 2012
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2009, 06:32:25 PM
We waterboarded KSM 183 times or was it one time but they made 183 tips of water onto this f'ers face. As far as the timeline, I am simply repeating what the CIA has said, which I think is fairly reliable.
As for supporting "torture", do you really believe placing a caterpillar in the room with a terrorist afraid of bugs and playing the Barney theme song is torture? Gee whiz, we live in a world full of wusses.
If you want to repeat what the CIA has said, they also said, in 2004 no less, that 'there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," '.
Wow, that bastion of left-wing kookiness, the CIA, has just said that...wait for it.....WATERBOARDING DOESN'T WORK!
Quote from: FOTD on April 25, 2009, 08:40:27 PM
Now, Guido pipe down before you become invisible and this forum starts resembling the real America.
You mean, America the "democracy"? You are shameless, piping up at me after getting spanked publicly.
Quote from: Trogdor on April 26, 2009, 12:55:03 AM
You are then one accuser away from the same treatment yourself. If you are fine if that happens to you then you can stand over there with Guido. We are only a few years before they will be waterboarding people to find out who leaked the Wolverine movie. Gingrich 2012
Trog?
(http://cmacivor.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/tin-foil-hat.jpg)
If it isn't torture then why couldn't any law enforcement use it on any person that was Accused of a crime.
Quote from: Trogdor on April 26, 2009, 11:52:53 AM
If it isn't torture then why couldn't any law enforcement use it on any person that was Accused of a crime.
Because we have a Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment. Are you even trying anymore or do you believe terrorists picked up on the field of battle have U.S. Constitutional rights? If its the latter, then hell, let's read them their Miranda rights and get them a lawyer (at our expense if they can't afford one) right after they are done killing our soldiers or beheading an infidel.
Quote from: guido911 on April 26, 2009, 11:26:08 AM
You mean, America the "democracy"? You are shameless, piping up at me after getting spanked publicly.
The spunk has been spanked....and in public by Guido. Oh for shame. Anyway Gwee, this article articulates the necessity of having you and this demon on board at TNF...we do create clarity as much as it's just not right to give you that much credit.
Read up!:
Conservatives Live in a Different Moral Universe -- And Here's Why It Matters"
Liberals and conservatives have highly different moral priorities. And we have to understand them if we want to accomplish anything.http://www.alternet.org/story/138303/conservatives_live_in_a_different_moral_universe_--_and_here's_why_it_matters/?page=6
Quote from: guido911 on April 26, 2009, 12:00:41 PM
Because we have a Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment. Are you even trying anymore or do you believe terrorists picked up on the field of battle have U.S. Constitutional rights? If its the latter, then hell, let's read them their Miranda rights and get them a lawyer (at our expense if they can't afford one) right after they are done killing our soldiers or beheading an infidel.
It has nothing to do with field of battle or people who cut somebodies head off. It is anybody we decide to have the CIA pickup from whatever country. Are you saying that no US citizen should be waterboarded if they believe they have information to save lives?
Quote from: Trogdor on April 26, 2009, 01:17:55 PM
It has nothing to do with field of battle or people who cut somebodies head off. It is anybody we decide to have the CIA pickup from whatever country. Are you saying that no US citizen should be waterboarded if they believe they have information to save lives?
You have both changed the subject and scope of the instant torture debate, presumably because you know foreign born terrorists on foreign lands have no rights under our constitution. Furthermore, you originally posted about waterboarding U.S. citizens for leaking the Wolverine movie, and obvious attempt at a slippery slope argument. Now you are talking about U.S. citizens that have the same sort of information KSM had and whether those folks could be waterboarded. I have previously posted on this forum that I agree with that rightwing extremist/noted fascist Alan Dershowitz's position on torture warrants:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/
You bet that if someone knew that McVeigh was about to bomb the Murrah Building and refused to tell authorities, you damned well better believe that person gets caterpillared or any other "enhanced interrogation technique".
Quote from: FOTD on April 26, 2009, 12:45:53 PM
The spunk has been spanked....and in public by Guido. Oh for shame. Anyway Gwee, this article articulates the necessity of having you and this demon on board at TNF...we do create clarity as much as it's just not right to give you that much credit.
Read up!:Conservatives Live in a Different Moral Universe -- And Here's Why It Matters
"Liberals and conservatives have highly different moral priorities. And we have to understand them if we want to accomplish anything.
http://www.alternet.org/story/138303/conservatives_live_in_a_different_moral_universe_--_and_here's_why_it_matters/?page=6
FOTD, going full retard as a way of life
(http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/simple-jack.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on April 26, 2009, 02:16:28 PM
You have both changed the subject and scope of the instant torture debate, presumably because you know foreign born terrorists on foreign lands have no rights under our constitution. Furthermore, you originally posted about waterboarding U.S. citizens for leaking the Wolverine movie, and obvious attempt at a slippery slope argument. Now you are talking about U.S. citizens that have the same sort of information KSM had and whether those folks could be waterboarded. I have previously posted on this forum that I agree with that rightwing extremist/noted fascist Alan Dershowitz's position on torture warrants:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/
You bet that if someone knew that McVeigh was about to bomb the Murrah Building and refused to tell authorities, you damned well better believe that person gets caterpillared or any other "enhanced interrogation technique".
You are right I went way off course. I just don't see where it ends if waterboarding and other techniques aren't torture why you just can't do it to anybody in the US. Maybe it will be like a breathalyzer. They will ask you if you will submit to a waterboarding and you have the right to refuse. Oh and Obama is trying to get rid of the right to have a lawyer when being questioned. So that would take away the lawyer trying to protect you. And you still would have the right to remain silent, but they will just keep going until you talk. Maybe the torture warrants will end up like FISA, too big of a hassle for the President to deal with. So just skirt around it.
This will not make many on this forum happy. Apparently, a majority of Americans have no problem with "enhanced interrogation".
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118006/Slim-Majority-Wants-Bush-Era-Interrogations-Investigated.aspx
Let the investigations of the Bush admin. begin!!!
Quote from: guido911 on April 28, 2009, 10:43:15 PM
This will not make many on this forum happy. Apparently, a majority of Americans have no problem with "enhanced interrogation".
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118006/Slim-Majority-Wants-Bush-Era-Interrogations-Investigated.aspx
Let the investigations of the Bush admin. begin!!!
Wait a minute. The majority voted Obama into office and you can't accept that either.....
Anyway, it's up to the Justice Department to deal with the Bushevik tortuous administrators.
It's a shame Rice, Cheney, and Rummy will have to answer questions to appease those of us who are firm believers in the rule of law.
Sometimes, the truth matters... more than opinion polls...
Waterboarding: A Tortured History
by Eric Weiner
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
Col. Keeley: And then did he take you back to your room?
Navarro: When Yuki could not get anything out of me, he wanted the interpreter to place me down below. And I was told by Yuki to take off all my clothes, so what I did was to take off my clothes as ordered. I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands and neck to that bench, lying with my face upward. After I was tied to the bench, Yuki placed some cloth on my face. And then with water from the faucet, they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times.
You mean he brought water and poured water down your throat?
No sir, on my face, until I became unconscious. We were lying that way, with some cloth on my face, and then Yuki poured water on my face continuously.
And you couldn't breathe?
No, I could not, and so I, for a time, lost consciousness. I found my consciousness came back again and found Yuki was sitting on my stomach. And then I vomited the water from my stomach, and the consciousness came back again for me.
Where did the water come out when he sat on your stomach?
From my mouth and all openings of my face ... and then Yuki would repeat the same treatment and the same procedure to me until I became unconscious again.
How many times did that happen?
Around four or five times, from two o'clock up to four o'clock in the afternoon. When I was not able to endure his punishment which I received, I told a lie to Yuki ... . I could not really show anything to Yuki, because I was really lying just to stop the torture.
Was it painful?
Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious — like drowning in the water.
Like you were drowning?
Drowning. You could hardly breathe.
I can't afford $1,000 a second but I'd donate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_en_ot/us_tv_hannity_s_torture (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_en_ot/us_tv_hannity_s_torture)
Olbermann pressing on Hannity's waterboard offer
After Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity made a seemingly impromptu offer last week to undergo waterboarding as a benefit for charity, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann leapt at it. He offered $1,000 to the families of U.S. troops for every second Hannity withstood the technique.
Quote from: Townsend on April 29, 2009, 09:29:06 AM
I can't afford $1,000 a second but I'd donate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_en_ot/us_tv_hannity_s_torture (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_en_ot/us_tv_hannity_s_torture)
Olbermann pressing on Hannity's waterboard offer
After Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity made a seemingly impromptu offer last week to undergo waterboarding as a benefit for charity, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann leapt at it. He offered $1,000 to the families of U.S. troops for every second Hannity withstood the technique.
You've noticed the crickets regarding this from Hannity since then...while I think Olbermann maybe went a little too far with this, it sure is telling of the 'put up or shut up' mentality regarding this. I guess the right wing talk/spin machine is just that: talk.
Althouth $1000 a second? It's really a win-win. The money goes to charity. Maybe Hannity is thinking now he should have kept his hole shut about it.
Quote from: Townsend on April 29, 2009, 09:29:06 AM
I can't afford $1,000 a second but I'd donate.
I bet you probably could.
Quote from: Hoss on April 29, 2009, 10:15:53 AM
You've noticed the crickets regarding this from Hannity since then...while I think Olbermann maybe went a little too far with this, it sure is telling of the 'put up or shut up' mentality regarding this. I guess the right wing talk/spin machine is just that: talk.
Althouth $1000 a second? It's really a win-win. The money goes to charity. Maybe Hannity is thinking now he should have kept his hole shut about it.
Hannity is a blow-hard. I think he ought to take JO up on it.
"Here come da judge, here come da jusge...." (F. Wilson)
Spanish judge opens Guantanamo investigation
By DANIEL WOOLLS – 1 hour ago
MADRID (AP) — A Spanish judge opened a probe into the Bush administration over alleged torture of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, pressing ahead Wednesday with a drive that Spain's own attorney general has said should be waged in the United States, if at all.
Judge Baltasar Garzon, Spain's most prominent investigative magistrate, said he is acting under this country's observance of the principle of universal justice, which allows crimes allegedly committed in other countries to be prosecuted in Spain.
He said documents declassified by the new U.S. government suggest the practice was systematic and ordered at high levels of the US government.
Garzon's move is separate from a complaint by human rights lawyers that seeks charges against six specific Bush administration officials they accuse of creating a legal framework to permit torture of suspects at Guantanamo Bay and other U.S. detention facilities.
Spanish prosecutors said on April 17 that any such probe should be carried out by the U.S. and recommended against it being launched in Spain. Their opinion has been endorsed by Attorney General Candido Conde-Pumpido. Garzon originally had that case, but ultimately it was transferred to another judge, who has yet to decide whether to investigate.
Now, Garzon is opening a separate, broader probe that does not name any specific suspects but targets "possible material authors" of torture, accomplices and those who gave torture orders.
Garzon is acting on his own, rather than in response to a complaint filed with the National Court, which is the usual procedure for universal justice probes in Spain.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking with reporters in Berlin before the investigation was announced, did not rule out cooperating with such an investigation.
"Obviously, we would look at any request that would come from a court in any country and see how and whether we should comply with it," Holder said.
"This is an administration that is determined to conduct itself by the rule of law and to the extent that we receive lawful requests from an appropriately-created court, we would obviously respond to it," he said.
Asked if that meant the U.S. would cooperate with a foreign court prosecuting Bush administration officials, Holder said he was talking about evidentiary requests, and would review any such request to see if the United States would comply.
In a 10-page writ, Garzon said documents on Bush-era treatment of prisoners, recently declassified by the Obama administration, "reveal what had been just an intuition: an authorized and systematic plan of torture and mistreatment of persons denied freedom without any charge whatsoever and without the rights enjoyed by any detainee."
Garzon cited media accounts of the documents and said he would ask the U.S. to send the documents to him.
The judge wrote that abuses at Guantanamo and other U.S. prisons for terror suspects, such as the American air base at Bagram, Afghanistan, suggest "the existence of a concerted plan to carry out a multiplicity of crimes of torture."
He said this plan took on "almost an official nature and therefore entails criminal liability in the different structures of execution, command, design and authorization of this systematic plan of torture."
He said he also is acting on the basis of accounts by four former Guantanamo inmates who have alleged in Spanish courts that they were tortured at that U.S. prison in eastern Cuba.
All four were once accused of belonging to a Spanish al-Qaida cell but eventually cleared of the accusations. One is a Spanish citizen, another is a Moroccan citizen who has lived in Spain for more than a decade, and the other two are residents of Britain.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
I believe FOTD has a woodrow right now.
Awww. Poor ol' Abu Zabaydah is suffering as a result of his CIA interrogation, my heart is breaking.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-margulies30-2009apr30,0,2636580.story?track=rss
Tell me Abu about the suffering of this man?
(http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:EqVXoVIAmPyO-M:http://xiceecube17x.files.wordpress)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 29, 2009, 11:18:08 AM
Hannity is a blow-hard. I think he ought to take JO up on it.
Well, Conan, I never really took Hannity (or his idol Rush) too seriously anyway, and I find it almost disturbing that there are some in this country who take his words as almost Gospel.