Of course, my point is that you should really read up on it before formulating a position and argument, particularly when a premise of your argument is undermined by minor research.
No. I think if someone wants to propose that a joke on Jay Leno is fact then he should be the one doing the research to support his claim so we can adequately respond to it. Otherwise its just that. A joke.
No. I think if someone wants to propose that a joke on Jay Leno is fact then he should be the one doing the research to support his claim so we can adequately respond to it. Otherwise its just that. A joke.
Jay Leno said the New York Times in his joke, so it's not a real hard trail to follow from joke to fact.
Asscroft has a point, he has it in his power to withold the memos from Legal scrutiny because he is in possession of them . . \
His excuse making is unbelievable! and what can be worse then to see as**icker-and-associates come running to defend his OUTRIGHT lying to Congressional committee?!?! . . . lying to the LAW . . .
in the name of what? . . . he 'believes' that he can protect the presidents right to confidential information?!?!
Clearly, when those memos reveal a breach of International Law and treaties signed by the US, and therefor, breach of US law, it is 'his opinion' that he is saving the president's ass! . . . nothing about it is Legal
legal sounding maybe, like mumbo-jumbo . . . like a toddler's babbeling can sound like mathematics to late-night grad students . . . but nothing else
We are supposedly a country that respects the rule of Law . . . (pwahahaha!)
If only I could have seen into the future a few posts below where he was in a linked article! I was responding to the initial post ya know. :P
...
Quote:
Of course, my point is that you should really read up on it before formulating a position and argument, particularly when a premise of your argument is undermined by minor research.
I agree with giant here. Google is your friend.
However, the approach of dressing you down with his amazing superintellect, while trademark behavior, wasn't the most effective and adult way to respond.
[Of course, my point is that you should really read up on it before formulating a position and argument, particularly when a premise of your argument is undermined by minor research.
ding ding ding ding ding ding.
giant, you should know better. Are you really surprised? I think you're asking too much of the CoBers.
Since you brought up Hitler, show me the directive from Hitler that authorized the holocaust. Not all executives leave paper trails, particularly when authorizing nasty things. That doesn't, however, obviate their ultimate responsibility, even in a court of law.
Oh, really now. Please stop. Any comparison of the Bush administration to Hitler or any other murderous regime is not only ridiculous, it is sickening. Anyone making such a comparison loses all credibility.
So far, I have not seen any reason to believe Bush or Rumsfeld authorized torture. When I do, the we can argue about it.
With all of the Ashcroft hating going on, I have only seen one action that I disapprove of: US Citizens being held without charges being filed. I think that's unacceptable and direct violation of the Constitution. As far as the prisoner camps, anything short of torture is fine with me. The Geneva Conventions do not necessarily apply because the detainees are not members of a uniformed army.
Oh, really now. Please stop. Any comparison of the Bush administration to Hitler or any other murderous regime is not only ridiculous, it is sickening. Anyone making such a comparison loses all credibility.
So far, I have not seen any reason to believe Bush or Rumsfeld authorized torture. When I do, the we can argue about it.
With all of the Ashcroft hating going on, I have only seen one action that I disapprove of: US Citizens being held without charges being filed. I think that's unacceptable and direct violation of the Constitution. As far as the prisoner camps, anything short of torture is fine with me. The Geneva Conventions do not necessarily apply because the detainees are not members of a uniformed army.
Feel free to disagree.
Uh, no one in here compared anyone to Hitler...until you did. In fact, no one even mentioned Hitler's name...until you did. You're the one making phony "John Ashcroft is Hitler" comparisons.
Anyone making such a comparison loses all credibility.
I really try to not respond in these types of threads anymore, but that is just too damned funny. You bring up Hitler then when someone discusses Hitler you reprimand them. Brilliant!
Face facts; even if there was a tape of Bush saying "We should torture people if it helps national security." you STILL wouldn't care.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Of course, my point is that you should really read up on it before formulating a position and argument, particularly when a premise of your argument is undermined by minor research.
No. I think if someone wants to propose that a joke on Jay Leno is fact then he should be the one doing the research to support his claim so we can adequately respond to it. Otherwise its just that. A joke.
Originally posted by dviant
No. I think if someone wants to propose that a joke on Jay Leno is fact then he should be the one doing the research to support his claim so we can adequately respond to it. Otherwise its just that. A joke.
Jay Leno said the New York Times in his joke, so it's not a real hard trail to follow from joke to fact.
His excuse making is unbelievable! and what can be worse then to see as**icker-and-associates come running to defend his OUTRIGHT lying to Congressional committee?!?! . . . lying to the LAW . . .
in the name of what? . . . he 'believes' that he can protect the presidents right to confidential information?!?!
Clearly, when those memos reveal a breach of International Law and treaties signed by the US, and therefor, breach of US law, it is 'his opinion' that he is saving the president's ass! . . . nothing about it is Legal
legal sounding maybe, like mumbo-jumbo . . . like a toddler's babbeling can sound like mathematics to late-night grad students . . . but nothing else
We are supposedly a country that respects the rule of Law . . . (pwahahaha!)
Originally posted by Scott
I think the key phase these is, "According to the 'New York Times'".
Dave blair as a ghost writer no doubt...
If only I could have seen into the future a few posts below where he was in a linked article! I was responding to the initial post ya know. :P
...
Of course, my point is that you should really read up on it before formulating a position and argument, particularly when a premise of your argument is undermined by minor research.
I agree with giant here. Google is your friend.
However, the approach of dressing you down with his amazing superintellect, while trademark behavior, wasn't the most effective and adult way to respond.
But we can't all be too smart for MENSA, can we?
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Let's see: Saddam tortured his people; Bush wants to torture Saddam's people.
Saddam arrested people without charges and held them in jail for an indefinite period of time, too.
Originally posted by pfflam
We are supposedly a country that respects the rule of Law . . . (pwahahaha!)
And guess who our chief law enforcement officer is...
Originally posted by giant
[Of course, my point is that you should really read up on it before formulating a position and argument, particularly when a premise of your argument is undermined by minor research.
ding ding ding ding ding ding.
giant, you should know better. Are you really surprised? I think you're asking too much of the CoBers.
Originally posted by dviant
You let me know when Bush drops a nasty combination of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX on some American town. Then I might see your point.
But if we use it say, against Vietnam, is it OK?
Originally posted by Towel
Since you brought up Hitler, show me the directive from Hitler that authorized the holocaust. Not all executives leave paper trails, particularly when authorizing nasty things. That doesn't, however, obviate their ultimate responsibility, even in a court of law.
Oh, really now. Please stop. Any comparison of the Bush administration to Hitler or any other murderous regime is not only ridiculous, it is sickening. Anyone making such a comparison loses all credibility.
So far, I have not seen any reason to believe Bush or Rumsfeld authorized torture. When I do, the we can argue about it.
With all of the Ashcroft hating going on, I have only seen one action that I disapprove of: US Citizens being held without charges being filed. I think that's unacceptable and direct violation of the Constitution. As far as the prisoner camps, anything short of torture is fine with me. The Geneva Conventions do not necessarily apply because the detainees are not members of a uniformed army.
Feel free to disagree.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, really now. Please stop. Any comparison of the Bush administration to Hitler or any other murderous regime is not only ridiculous, it is sickening. Anyone making such a comparison loses all credibility.
So far, I have not seen any reason to believe Bush or Rumsfeld authorized torture. When I do, the we can argue about it.
With all of the Ashcroft hating going on, I have only seen one action that I disapprove of: US Citizens being held without charges being filed. I think that's unacceptable and direct violation of the Constitution. As far as the prisoner camps, anything short of torture is fine with me. The Geneva Conventions do not necessarily apply because the detainees are not members of a uniformed army.
Feel free to disagree.
So does this mean you've lost all credibility?
Anyone making such a comparison loses all credibility.
I really try to not respond in these types of threads anymore, but that is just too damned funny. You bring up Hitler then when someone discusses Hitler you reprimand them. Brilliant!
Face facts; even if there was a tape of Bush saying "We should torture people if it helps national security." you STILL wouldn't care.