Matt
-
Content Count
3352 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Matt
-
-
It's funny, I thought the same thing during the previous administration. Guess that just shows how much a democrat-or-republican bias can control your perspective.arrogance (f* the American people, we make the decisions)Just curious, though, what choices or rights in your life have been taken away since this administration came to office?
-
THAT would be ironic!But Cheney didn't sign a "truther" petition
He did work for Haliburton though..never was a Communist, never worked in a Marxist/Lenninist organization
He did, however, insult the entire state of West Virginia.never claimed suburban white kids are crazier than urban black kids
And yet... there are other, much larger things that Cheney says are "nothing but lies".and never claimed the swearing thing is nothin' but a lie
We did have Guantanamo bay.Yep. President GW Bush pretty-much stomped all over your civil liberties during his 8 long years in office.Not as much as usual. At least we didn't have concentration camps this time.
(Reason #721 for the US to avoid wars: not having concentration camps represents a marked improvement in wartime domestic policy.)
Oh... and The Patriot Act.
I think the point--however futile or ill portrayed--is to show that neither side of the aisle is decent. A poor defense, yes, but it may cause people to get out of the "liberals are anti-american commies!" or "conservatives are war-mongering nut jobs!" mentalities. Doubtful to succeed, because people aren't very good (or willing) to critique their own ideas or notions--especially when under fire.Why do people always say what's the difference "Bush, Cheney, Clinton.... did it". If it was wrong before it's just as wrong now, or has something changed. -
Leader???? More dictator than leader
Why?
-
This crawls into the territory of whether or not we believe people are guaranteed basic human rights, or privileged to legal US rights. I suppose that's where you and I disagree.According to "the rules," they didn't have rights to begin with, we as a nation, however, accord them rights -- up to a point. -
Dang...I was a fan of his work with Barker
-
Would a lie detector strapped to their arm during interrogation reveal lies/false information?
Lie detectors don't work.
Especially under high-stress scenarios like 'enhanced interrogations'
-
THEY have abandoned any "right" to a civil reaction.
They never got a trial to 'prove' they did anything to 'abandon' their rights.
Once it's clear that a civil reaction is or will be ineffectual (meaning, it must, at least, be tried, and I think we did that, and paid a very high cost for it), then it's time to react in a manner commensurate to the dangers we face.There have been many CIA officials who have come forward and said that we could have gotten all of the same info through more reasonable means.
Also, how about the notion that these forms of 'enhanced interrogation' often produce false information--getting the recipient to say anything to make it stop?
-
jcl, I guess it's all about context.
-
What is the difference between doing the deed ourselves, or shipping these folks to a country that has no such qualms?
Anyone here think OUR soldiers, which BTW wear uniforms and don't hide behind civilians skirts, would be coddled by an extremest group?
Wow, really?
It is absolutely necessary that we hold ourselves to a higher standard. "What is the difference between doing the deed ourselves, or shipping these folks to a country that has no such qualms?" If we commit torture, we are no better than those of whom we are fighting. We are America, and if we're going to consider ourselves "more civilized than the others" (which in itself is a completely different discussion) then we cannot torture, and those responsible must be held accordingly. If you want America to start acting like "extremest" groups, then what's the point of any of this?
We have rules of interrogation for a reason.
-
Well, he's dead. So much for that.
RIP
-
Hmmmmm. I thought that political talk was not permitted here?
Info:
-
I'm not so sure it's a good thing..."Unfortunately, the pressure . . . to indict someone will be overwhelming," said Mark Lowenthal, a former senior CIA official. That will produce "two simultaneous unappealing outcomes," he said. "Half the population will think it is a whitewash and the right people weren't indicted. And half the population will think it is a lynch mob.
The half/half opinion is a quite a bold prediction. What if this does progress to people at the top? What if higher officials, directors, or even VPs are held responsible? I think if that happens, many people will be very pleased with the outcome. If litigation is brought against men and women at the bottom of the food chain, they will undoubted say "I had authorization from..." and hopefully the prosecution will work its way up. Only time will tell that one.
-
Yes I shall.
-
Is this supposed to be funny? Should I ban you?
-
but does that make it right for King Kennedy to rewrite rules so he can appoint a new senator with out any election.
Just because he wants to doesn't mean its going to happen.
Well maybe it does in our new socialism.Please...
Anyway... yeah JDoors, *politics*
Stuff like this happens on both sides of the curve. 
-
Wish I could be there. Should be fun.
-
It would be very, very nice if this led to a more genial relationship with North Korea. Yeah, they need to make some changes first, but .... it's a start.
JDoors, you and I agree on something!
-
-
I feel like a big reason that Bill Clinton went is due to Al Gore. I haven't heard anything officially mentioned on the matter, but the two journalists were employees of Al Gore's CurrentTV. Perhaps Gore reached out to him?
And yeah, I'd say this ended more successfully than Carter's visit to NK.
-
My gosh... it amazes me how some people can find fault in something like this.
Agreed. I will be pleasantly surprised if any luminaries in the GOP step forward to congratulate Bill Clinton.
The thing is, hitest, they have. I flipped on Fox Noise today just to see what their reactions were to the story. To my surprise, they were even speaking positively on the matter.
-
I smell a "Rat" a "Big F***g Rat here... Clinton couldn't free his own Bowels if he had too... There must be something going on behind the scenes with this as I doubt anyone could just have a meeting then walk away with detainees that easily...
That sounds reasonable to me. It may have all been worked out by underlings weeks ago.
Or... he did something today that a former President of the United States could do. I really hate Bush, but had he done something like this I'd give him the credit... You'd think predisposed biases wouldn't have to be part of a story like this, but no.
My gosh... it amazes me how some people can find fault in something like this.
-
Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton achieved something awesome today.
N. Korea says 2 U.S. journalists will be freed
Announcement of pardon comes after Bill Clinton meets with Kim Jong Il
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32277010/ns/wo...ws-asiapacific/
North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has pardoned two jailed American journalists and ordered their release following an unannounced meeting with former President Bill Clinton, the North's state media said Wednesday.Clinton, who arrived in North Korea Tuesday on an unannounced visit, met with the reclusive and ailing Kim for talks described by Pyongyang as "exhaustive." It was Kim's first meeting with a prominent Western figure since his reported stroke nearly a year ago.
-
Ooops ... thought maybe a few of us may have missed it. My apologies.
No need for an apology. I simply wanted to make it known that this info is outdated and ensure that people don't misinterpret it.
-
Another One Jumps Under The Bus
in World and Politics
Posted
Oh Glenn Beck......
So many of those were taken out of context.
Quote #1 should actually read:
"We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun."
Quote #2 should actually read:
The Court said that the Second Amendment must be interpreted in light of the constitutional goal of recognizing and permitting militias. "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made.
It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." The Court believed this point was enough to establish the legitimacy of the law in question. There was no evidence that sawed-off shotguns have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Hence the Court could not "say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
If this pronouncement is taken seriously, then almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Those who contend that it does are arguing politics, not law.
Of course, the Supreme Court could have been wrong in the Miller case.
Quote #3, I'll admit that is a little strange...
Quote #4:
"[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture." ... I see no problem with this what-so-ever