Posted Without Comment

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
From 5 page article from the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.
Click to expand...


OK, maybe a few small comments. Shame is a word that comes to mind but these fuckers lack the capacity for shame. It's going to take at least a decade to unshit the bed that this Administration has shit. I hope all you "Kerry is worse" dumbasses keep all of this in mind.

What a disgrace.

Real the full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
 
Butt Damo says we already covered that "at least I did not vote for Kerry " stuff.
He told me to keep up :D

I was way ahead of him and any that supported Bush in any way at any time.
Still am.
 
uscitizen said:
Butt Damo says we already covered that "at least I did not vote for Kerry " stuff.
He told me to keep up :D

I was way ahead of him and any that supported Bush in any way at any time.
Still am.
Click to expand...
In that thread we had covered it. What are you on about here?
 
I do not intend for the true Bush legacy to be able to just be forgotten.
It is a moral imperative to ensure that his true legacy lives on.

after all I am a registered Republican ;)
 
uscitizen said:
I do not intend for the true Bush legacy to be able to just be forgotten.
It is a moral imperative to ensure that his true legacy lives on.

after all I am a registered Republican ;)
Click to expand...
Oh, so you agree that he isn't a leader then. Right? Which was my point in the other thread. That we need a leader in the WH, not a follower, or a loner.

Which seems to be the only people we have running, with a couple exceptions that appear to be losing.
 
Dungheap said:
From 5 page article from the NY Times:




OK, maybe a few small comments. Shame is a word that comes to mind but these fuckers lack the capacity for shame. It's going to take at least a decade to unshit the bed that this Administration has shit. I hope all you "Kerry is worse" dumbasses keep all of this in mind.

What a disgrace.

Real the full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Click to expand...


It's going to take at least a decade to unshit the bed that this Administration has shit. I hope all you "Kerry is worse" dumbasses keep all of this in mind.


WTF happened to this country? Eight or ten years ago, it was considered beyond the pale to publically express desire for torture. A lot of cons probably secretly harbored a sado-masochistic streak privately, but they wouldn't dare mention it publically.
 
Damocles said:
Oh, so you agree that he isn't a leader then. Right? Which was my point in the other thread. That we need a leader in the WH, not a follower, or a loner.

Which seems to be the only people we have running, with a couple exceptions that appear to be losing.
Click to expand...

Ohh bush was a leader, he just led us to hell.

Jim Jones was a leader, so was the comet hitchiking dude. The devil could possibly be considered a leader.
It is up to us to figure out which "leader" to follow.
Or to do as I do and follow none but our own nose.
 
uscitizen said:
Ohh bush was a leader, he just led us to hell.

Jim Jones was a leader, so was the comet hitchiking dude. The devil could possibly be considered a leader.
It is up to us to figure out which "leader" to follow.
Or to do as I do and follow none but our own nose.
Click to expand...
Bush appeared to be a leader because some of his policy was popular enough to garner popular support, but when the going got tough and leadership skills were actually needed, it was shown to be just smoke and mirrors.

If you jump in front of a parade, does that make you the Parade Marshall, or just a guy who jumped up there?

Truly, leadership is more than popular support, it is also the ability to gain support for unpopular but 'necessary' policy. The inability to keep support for what he has promoted as 'necessary' only proves my point that it wasn't 'leadership' that got us here. It was something else.
 
bush still garners a 30% or better support base. that indicates that he is still a leader.
I think you are hung up on the concept of being a good leader...
 
uscitizen said:
bush still garners a 30% or better support base. that indicates that he is still a leader.
I think you are hung up on the concept of being a good leader...
Click to expand...
Fine. If you want to say it that way.

We need a good leader in the WH, not a follower. How's that?
 
Damocles said:
Fine. If you want to say it that way.

We need a good leader in the WH, not a follower. How's that?
Click to expand...

Still no good, bush was and is a leader. A suckass one, but a leader nonethe less
Of course he may have trapped himself into following his own lead, but that is another issue.
the pandering for votes is unfortuantely something all politicos do. but out president is by definition a leader.

congresspersons are now by definition representatives, more than leaders.

so on the other thread, hillary is not yet a leader.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
Still no good, bush was and is a leader. A suckass one, but a leader nonethe less
Of course he may have trapped himself into following his own lead, but that is another issue.
the pandering for votes is unfortuantely something all politicos do. but out president is by definition a leader.

congresspersons are now by definition representatives, more than leaders.

so on the other thread, hillary is not yet a leader.
Click to expand...
The difference is in a philosophical rather than dictionary, introspective look at how I define leadership.

What I am posting is what I believe are qualities you will find in a leader. What you attempt to do is pretend that qualities don't exist and we must only follow the dictionary.

What I post is what I believe we need from the next WH occupant. Rather than just paying free rent for a resident who will simply follow the flow, or one who will simply walk in their own direction without actually leading, we need somebody who is a "leader".

You instead build a strawman, rather than do as your signature says.
 
You built a strawman. I dealt in the reality.
Your definition is subjective , mine is not.

What you are really saying is that we need a person in the WH that leads in the direction you think is right for our country.
All people think that, even those who voted for Bush because they thought he was a good leader by their definitions.
 
uscitizen said:
You built a strawman. I dealt in the reality.
Your definition is subjective , mine is not.

What you are really saying is that we need a person in the WH that leads in the direction you think is right for our country.
All people think that, even those who voted for Bush because they thought he was a good leader by their definitions.
Click to expand...
I was speaking philosophically, it is obvious. You are outside the argument, and pretend you can't understand it because it is "subjective".

You are on the wrong bus. Either go get on the right one, or actually take part in the actual conversation.

This is exactly why I call your arguments disingenuous so often. Because they are.

Good leaders often go in a direction I think is wrong. I'd say that FDR was a good leader who went in a direction that I would not. While it is subjective, I actually put forward qualities I believe you will find in a good leader, your answer. Spout off somebody else's definition without one original thought, then criticize without understanding.

Yours is truly a disingenuous piece of rubbish argument.

Why is it you expect others to "Think a little bit." but then can't seem to do any of it yourself?
 
uscitizen said:
Sigh....
Click to expand...

I think Damo has his period too. What's interesting is, they say that women who spend a lot of time together will start menstruating together. And yesterday it became obvious that Cawacko had his period. So I think that Cawacko and Damo have been posting together enough for it to affect their feminine cycle.

It's interesting.
 
Darla said:
I think Damo has his period too. What's interesting is, they say that women who spend a lot of time together will start menstruating together. And yesterday it became obvious that Cawacko had his period. So I think that Cawacko and Damo have been posting together enough for it to affect their feminine cycle.

It's interesting.
Click to expand...
Right. I think you like to attempt to poke me with a stick whenever you see me getting frustrated by another attempt to get uscitizen to actually read my posts and then post something thoughtful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top