Originally Posted by smc (Post 131116)

Don't either of you have anything better to do with your time?

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman (Post 131141)

Isn't it obvious smc?

We are the elite. We are post count whores.

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 131157)

Aa Ha, so that's how its done. Be careful, if a penis gets too big it can turn into a prick. :eek:

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman (Post 131159)

Not quite. You, Bionca and Ila have the biggest penises here according to the post. I an a couple hundred posts away from having a summer sausage...

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 131163)

Well, I guess you guys are going to have to work harder to get ahead. :turnoff::turnoff::lol:

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman (Post 131140)

Although I'm not a 'Pub, I voted "no".

Let him continue to make an ass of himself so that when the next elections come, no one votes for him or anyone who is preaching "hope" and "change".

Originally Posted by smc (Post 131170)

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman (Post 131141)

Isn't it obvious smc?

We are the elite. We are post count whores.

Originally Posted by ila (Post 131184)

Your attached thumbnail is the best that I've ever seen. I had a really good laugh. (I tried to rep you for it, but I have to spread some around first.)

Originally Posted by smc (Post 131170)

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 131239)

Who says I don't do that? :coupling:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 131087)

If Clinton can be impeached for lying about a blowjob, BO can be impeached for putting the country in irreversible insolvency and therefore threatening national security.

Originally Posted by paulmal32 (Post 131633)

He was impeached for lying under oath. It doesn't matter what he was lying about. The president committed perjury while holding office. Republican, Dem or independent he deserved what he got.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 131638)

reach a deal and let it blow over.

Originally Posted by paulmal32 (Post 131889)

Pun intended? LOL

Originally Posted by merelypink (Post 132232)

OF the current debt 10 trillion was under republican presidents(reagan,bush,bush)

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 132330)

Perhaps a more realistic view of the national debt.
It is important to note that the climb in the debt in the Bush Reagan years had a lot to to with the necessity of importing oil. during the 1970s we could no longer supply our oil demand from domestic sources. In the future, it will be extremely difficult to have a balanced budget due to the energy deficit.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 132728)

Looks like BO had his lackey, Charles Bolden - administrator for Nasa, violate the law. Bolden was directed to shut down the Constellation moon program in spite of the fact that law was written that specifically forbids doing just that without congressional approval. Congress has not voted on this yet, and in fact two previous congresses (both democratic and republican run) voted in support of it. Therefore Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY)10 has been violated. Congress has sent a strong rebuke to both Bolden and Obama to cease and desist the dismantling of the moon program. Commercial companies like Lockheed, Boeing, and United Space Alliance, which somehow didn't meet BO's wishes for a commercial space company to build the rockets, will probably start suing the government now.

Again, worse than lying about a blowjob, so yeah, impeach him.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 132728)

Looks like BO had his lackey, Charles Bolden - administrator for Nasa, violate the law. Bolden was directed to shut down the Constellation moon program in spite of the fact that law was written that specifically forbids doing just that without congressional approval. Congress has not voted on this yet, and in fact two previous congresses (both democratic and republican run) voted in support of it. Therefore Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY)10 has been violated. Congress has sent a strong rebuke to both Bolden and Obama to cease and desist the dismantling of the moon program. Commercial companies like Lockheed, Boeing, and United Space Alliance, which somehow didn't meet BO's wishes for a commercial space company to build the rockets, will probably start suing the government now.

Again, worse than lying about a blowjob, so yeah, impeach him.

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 132802)

Tracy, I wonder if you are involved with the space program.

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 132802)

I have never felt it justified to send people into space. The funds could be much better spent on mechanical space exploration. Sending people into space is extremely expensive and the payback is limited. Sometime in the future we may have the technology to make it practical. :)

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 132802)

Anyway, Obama's cutting back on programs that provide jobs for highly trained people is nuts with the economy the way it is. What is he thinking? With millions out of work he wants to cut back government jobs? :frown:

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 132802)

Impeach? Are you serious? You want Joe Biden to be President?:eek:

Originally Posted by Talvenada (Post 132812)

TRACY:
Do you think Bush 43 should have been impeached?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 132815)

Yes
For what? If you're talking about the Iraq WMD thing, there was an investigation and he was cleared. People that try and blame that whole Iraqi WMD thing on Bush and Bush alone have a very short memory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

Originally Posted by Talvenada (Post 132820)

TRACY:

You cannot think of ONE thing Bush 43 did? I have 118 questionable acts, and 30 impeachable ones?

Torture is a war crime when committed in WWII, and waterboarding was the crime. Starting a war deliberately. Bush 43 broke the FISA law with wiretapping, and this NASA thing is OUTRAGEOUS?

Originally Posted by Talvenada (Post 132820)

If you can impeach and convict Clinton & Obama, but not Bush 43 you are blinded by party loyalty and ideology. Are you also for a coup to throw out leaders you disagree with?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 131638)

You can't take down the president over a blowjob. This wasn't about Clinton lying under oath. It was the republicans trying to tarnish Clinton for policies they didn't like. So rather than attacking Clinton's policies they go for the cheap shot of impeaching him for lying about a blowjob. I think they knew they weren't going to actually get him out of office over this, so the whole thing was a useless distraction when the country had more important things to worry about. The best way to handle it wasn't out in the open. It should have been taken care of maturely and out of the public eye. Clinton knew he was caught, the republicans knew they had this over him. Meet in private and reach a deal and let it blow over.

Originally Posted by Talvenada (Post 132820)

If everyone had a narrow view like yours, we would be better off with a one-party system.

Originally Posted by jimnaseum (Post 132844)

Obama has been in smoke filled back rooms all year, reversing the machinery that sank our Nation.

Originally Posted by jimnaseum (Post 132844)

My Aunt was in NASA, my brother has autographed pictures from the original seven Astronauts and I think a Moon Flag. I think you're going to find that Obama wants to pare down A WHOLE LOT on space exploration, and the MILITARY in Large, at least the real expensive stuff anyway.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 132951)

I'm not going to loose any sleep over some foreign terrorist being waterboarded. And I've already talked about bush starting the Iraqi war. How did Bush break the FISA law? The wiretapping was discontinued January 2007 and the FISA law went into effect in June 2008? :lol:




Now tell me about being blinded by party ideology again?

Can you elaborate about my narrow view? I stick up for some things Bush does, but not all. I stick up for Clinton, and constantly bash BO. But you just see it as me blindly supporting republicans and trashing democrats. Who has the narrow view?

Originally Posted by Talvenada (Post 132991)

It's a bogus law, like John Yoo's legal mumbo-jumbo that legalized waterboarding AFTER THE FACT, which America has prosecuted as a violation of The Geneva Convention. Bush violated that law too.
...

Waterboarding is torture if done against us, but not when we do it, right? We're all good guys, and they are all worst of the worst, right. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
Bush violated the FISA laws that were in effect from before RR, and violated The Geneva Convention.

Originally Posted by The Geneva Convention Article 4 regarding status of who may be protected under The Geneva Convention as a POW(prisoner of war)

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman (Post 132994)

As terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

Originally Posted by Talvenada (Post 133000)

ANGRY:

I said TORTURE, which is NOT permitted, dude. Torture is waterboarding, and that is NOT permitted under any circumstances.

No rights doesn't mean you can do anything you want up to and including death.


TAL

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman (Post 133088)

The "no torture" only applies to those who are identified under The Geneva Convention. And waterboarding is not torture.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman (Post 133088)

The "no torture" only applies to those who are identified under The Geneva Convention. And waterboarding is not torture.

Originally Posted by Talvenada (Post 133114)

So, we can do anything we want to them, including kill them?

Are there any things we cannot do?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 133144)

How do you go from waterboarding is ok to killing them is ok? Are you not able to grasp varying degrees of concepts or can you only handle black and white?

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 132802)

Impeach? Are you serious? You want Joe Biden to be President?:eek:

Originally Posted by Tread (Post 133118)

Waterboarding is international described as torture.
The US has prosecuted water torture as war crime many times in history, what should Waterboarding exclude from this?

In the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court of the United States decides that prisoners of terror can?t be treated as Unlawful Combatant.
So they fall under the Laws of War or Public International Law, and forbid torture.

It is not right to punish someone who infracted the law (terrorism) with lawless methods. That is an antinomy itself.

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: 1tor?ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
1 a : anguish of body or mind : agony b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman (Post 133157)

Simulating drowing is not torture; actually carrying through with trying to drown a person would be.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman (Post 133157)

This is how the "noble Arabs" operate: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...2torture1.html

Comparing waterboarding to what they do is like comparing a pea shooter to a 155mm howitzer. Is this method uncomfortable? Yes. Does simulated drowning physically or mentally debilitate someone compared to beatings or other barbaristic actions? No.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman (Post 133157)

I think people fail to recognize that the people who get waterboarded are not your average, run-of-the-mill citizen who has been mistakenly detained. They are die-hard fanatics who would kill innocent people in a heartbeat and with a smile on their face.

Originally Posted by Tread (Post 133171)

Simulating you?re dieing is (mental) torture.

You can?t compare this that way.
One torture destroys you physical and possibly to death, the other destroys you mental, and you could also die directly by extreme mental torture.

As far as I know physical injuries heal faster and better or are better to live with than mental injuries.
Often physical tortures causes mental injuries too, but that don?t make them worse in general.

No matter how evil they are, or what you or I think they deserve, no government can ignore its own standards for prisoners. And the US law does not allow torture under any conditions.

I don?t say they are innocent, but they never had a conviction, and the most of them are not the suicide-bomber who killed people.
It was never proven in with degrade they are involved. i.e. is someone who cooked the meal in a terror camp as guilty as the organizer of a terror act?

Originally Posted by Talvenada (Post 133173)

ANGRY:

That Conse 'Pub radio talker on WLS in Chicago and a friend of Sean Hannity tried waterboarding on the air, while he was filmed. He felt it would be like splashing water on his face, and 60 seconds would be EASY to attain. He lasted SEVEN SECONDS, and told a dismissive Hannity it was TORTURE.

The water goes down your nose and throat, causes a near blackout condition, and begins a mental breakdown. That's after SEVEN SECONDS.

But even a Conse 'Pub saying it makes him a traitor at worst, and makeshim a RINO at best. I know whose side is he on!! Or you want proof to savage!!!

TAL

Mancow Muller waterboarding update: Hey Sean Hannity, it's 'absolutely torture'
By Craig Newman on May 27, 2009 12:24 PM |