Re: Let's review, shall we?

Quoted message said:

Afghanistan is rapidly going to hell, Iraq has gone to hell, the US
manufacturing base is going to hell, quality of life and standard of
living are dropping for wage earners in the US, the environment is
going to hell, and the federal government is running up debts it has no
idea how to pay, and you claim that is doing things well?

Are you living on Earth or in an evil parallel universe? The only
statement that has even a half-truth is 'the federal government is
running up debts', which is normal during war-time, and if you were to
take an economics course instead of regurgitating the talking points
from the DNC, you'd find that running a deficit does not equate to
incompetence.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Where are the Republicans with truly conservative values to take back
their party from the power mad cabal currently in charge?

ROTFL

Joe Lieberman gets tossed to the curb by Dems despite voting the party line
90% of the time.

HOWARD DEAN is your party chairman.

Go find a former president to travel to foreign soil and tear down his
country. (One of which was on the PAYROLL of Dubai, of course, along with
his lying former Sec'y of State -- while his wife railed against a deal the
other two were lobbying for! Culture of Corruption: The '90s.)

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Jim said:

>> And, hypothetically, if there happens to be an attack tomorrow,
>> would you blame Bush?
>
> Insufficient information provided to answer the question.
>
Insufficient information? How about you make up a scenario where
you would not attribute blame to Bush... Curious if you can...

I've got your answer. They'll do everything in their /power/
(touchy word) to undermine Bush -- literally to the point of
contributing to their own country's defeat just because it will mean
HE failed -- and then blame him when it (or a catastrophic attack)
happens.

Agreed... Somewhere along the way, Democrats have misinterpreted the
meaning of 'opposition party'. They think it means that no matter
what the topic, they need to take the opposite position to that of the
Republican Party. Any deviation results in expulsion - e.g.
Lieberman.

All comes down to the 2000 election. They NEVER got over it -- even during
that so-called period of "good will" after 9/11 (cue Hillary rolling her
eyes even then). Their hatred of GWB is so rabid that they'll actively root
for their own country's defeat. Pretty astounding.

Jim said:

Quoted message said:

And apart from the "here" bit, it's quite likely the London train
attacks and other terrorist activities in other countries were made
more likely by the US invasion of Iraq.

Now we might be getting somewhere... Given that we were attacked
unprovoked (i.e. we did not 'invade' and free any Middle Eastern
countries in the recent past leading up to 9/11),

You really do not have a clue, do you?

Some education is in order. You can start with Mohammad Mossadegh,
continue on the SAVAK secret police force, look into who backs the
House of Saud and how they treat their subjects, move on Sabra and
Shatila, the dehumanization of the Palestinians, and the hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians that died from sanctions.

Quoted message said:

is it not just as
likely that other terrorist activities were inevitable? The engagement
of Iraq was a catalyst, not a reactant in the equation. And in that
respect, accelerating the process is quite desirable, given the current
state of troop deployment. And ironically, the terrorist are coming in
droves to where our troops are deployed! Unfortunately, this means
we'll spend more time and money and lives in Iraq than originally
planned, but it (the war on terror) will be resolved in a significantly
shorter timeframe and with less money and lives overall.

If you can not tell the difference between resistance to conquest by a
foreign power and terrorism, you really do have a problem comprehending
what is going on.

Saddam Hussein was VERY efficient at stomping out radical religious
groups, and was a hated enemy of both the Shia clerics that hold sway
in Iran, and the Sunni fundamentalists who approve of al Qaeda in its
ilk. Both groups are overjoyed that one enemy (the US) has removed
another enemy (Hussein and the Baath Party). WAY TO GO!

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

[email hidden] (who?) anonymously snipes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone who really believes that forcing people into painful positions
for hours on end, while subjecting them to temperature extremes,
deafening noise and sleep deprivation is not torture should be
committed to an institution for the criminally insane, for the
protection of society.

Interesting... You want to throw Americans into an institution for the
'protection of society' for a belief, yet you think it is just wicked
and cruel that we keep a sworn enemy from sleeping for a few days when
they have information that truly could protect our society.

Yep, "sworn enemies" that as it turns out in many cases did nothing
wrong, but were turned over to the US for bounty money, or where picked
up in raids because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong
time.

Anyone who believes that what has gone on in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo
Bay, etc. is not torture suffers from a psychosis that is incompatible
with living in a civilized society, and should receive that appropriate
treatment, to protect both themselves and others. What has been done to
US prisoners extends beyond simple sleep deprivation. Or are you fine
with causing permanent mental damage to people WHO HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN
GUILTY OF ANY CRIME IN A FAIR TRIAL?

Of course, if you bothered to look into torture, you would learn that
it is noticeably bad at producing reliable information (contrary to the
depiction in movies and television). Furthermore, torture taints any
information obtained, preventing its use in any type of FAIR TRIAL.

Finally, torture degrades those who perform it and the society that
lets it go on. Torturing prisoners will do more long term damage to the
US than anything Usama bin Laden could dream up. 225 years of moral
authority (build up despite several severe flaws) has been tossed out
in less than 5 years.

Those that truly hate the US must be gratified by its actions over the
last 5 years.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

William Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

William Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> William Sornson wrote:
>>
>>> landotter wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Your government, not mine, voted to suspend habeus corpus
>>>> yesterday. Your government voted in favor of torture....
>>
>> Gee, I'm sorry I plonked THAT liar. {sarcams mode tubless viola}
>>
>> Torture is cutting off a screaming person's head.
>>
>> Torture is cutting off hands or feet or fingers or worse.
>>
>> Torture is burning someone with cigarettes or electrical wires.
>>
>> Torture is poking out an eye (or both).
>>
>> Loud music and bright lights ain't torture. (Water-boarding, which
>> most US agents undergo as part of their training, is specifically
>> prohibited.)
>
> Sornson is a willfully ignorant idiot if he does not understand
> psychological torture.

That I did not address that does not mean than I don't understand
it. Fear not, your ACLU pals will have terrorist suspects jury
shopping in no time....

Do to Mr. Sornson what has been done to prisoners by the US and its
agents, and he would change his mind in a hurry. Mr. Sornson would
even admit to it being torture if that was a requirement for it to
stop.

We should give Mr. Sornson the benefit of the doubt, and accept until
proven otherwise that he has stopped thinking for himself, and is just
following the party line.

Anyone who really believes that forcing people into painful positions
for hours on end, while subjecting them to temperature extremes,
deafening noise and sleep deprivation is not torture should be
committed to an institution for the criminally insane, for the
protection of society.

Mr. Sunset has been reading the blogs one sees.

Wrong. Try again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Or maybe he is so insensitive that nothing
> bothers him, except not getting his way.

Getting my way about what?

Your apparent dream about permanent right-wing government that will
put those who disagree in their place as "sore losers".

Quoted message said:

You're flailing and ranting; get a grip.

Speaking of getting a grip, why do you never find fault with anyone on
the political right? Can't stand to see your "team" lose?

You sound more paranoid than Clitton.

Is juvenile humor the best Mr. Sornson can do?

Quoted message said:

WIN AN ELECTION AND STFU ALREADY!

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes
decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

Hint, with a full recount in Florida in 2000, Bush would have been sent
home to Texas to clear brush full time.

Quoted message said:

(BTW, that "third person arguing /style/" of yours is lame and
chicken-bleep. Then again, why am I surprised! LOL )

Whatever you say, William Sornson.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

[email hidden] (who?) anonymously snipes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Afghanistan is rapidly going to hell, Iraq has gone to hell, the US
manufacturing base is going to hell, quality of life and standard of
living are dropping for wage earners in the US, the environment is
going to hell, and the federal government is running up debts it has no
idea how to pay, and you claim that is doing things well?

Are you living on Earth or in an evil parallel universe? The only
statement that has even a half-truth is 'the federal government is
running up debts', which is normal during war-time, and if you were to
take an economics course instead of regurgitating the talking points
from the DNC, you'd find that running a deficit does not equate to
incompetence.

Do you only believe the feel good reports that ignore the true
situation? You must only get your information from right-wing talk
radio if you believe things are going well.

War? When did the US Congress declare war? Did I miss something?

How does one have a discussion with someone who has no clue to what
reality is?

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

[email hidden] (who?) anonymously snipes:

Quoted message said:

William Sornson said:

Jim said:

>> And, hypothetically, if there happens to be an attack tomorrow,
>> would you blame Bush?
>
> Insufficient information provided to answer the question.
>
Insufficient information? How about you make up a scenario where you
would not attribute blame to Bush... Curious if you can...

I've got your answer. They'll do everything in their /power/ (touchy word)
to undermine Bush -- literally to the point of contributing to their own
country's defeat just because it will mean HE failed -- and then blame him
when it (or a catastrophic attack) happens.

Agreed... Somewhere along the way, Democrats have misinterpreted the
meaning of 'opposition party'. They think it means that no matter what
the topic, they need to take the opposite position to that of the
Republican Party. Any deviation results in expulsion - e.g.
Lieberman.

ROTFLMAO. Thanks for the laugh - I enjoy the occasional ridiculous
post.

To paraphrase Frank Zappa, you wouldn't know a true opposition party if
it bit you in the ass.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

William Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Where are the Republicans with truly conservative values to take back
their party from the power mad cabal currently in charge?

ROTFL

Joe Lieberman gets tossed to the curb by Dems despite voting the party line
90% of the time.

To paraphrase (the very annoying) James Carville; It's the occupation
of Iraq, stupid.

Quoted message said:

HOWARD DEAN is your party chairman.

I do not belong to a political party. Wrong again.

Quoted message said:

Go find a former president to travel to foreign soil and tear down his
country. (One of which was on the PAYROLL of Dubai, of course, along with
his lying former Sec'y of State -- while his wife railed against a deal the
other two were lobbying for! Culture of Corruption: The '90s.)

I never voted for Bill Clinton, and would only vote for Hillary Clinton
as the lesser of two evils (and only if the election appeared to be
very close in the state).

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-NIE-Leak.wmv

Funny, but the target is too easy.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

William Sornson said:

[email hidden] (who?) anonymously snipes:

Quoted message said:

William Sornson said:

Jim wrote:
>>> And, hypothetically, if there happens to be an attack tomorrow,
>>> would you blame Bush?
>>
>> Insufficient information provided to answer the question.
>>
> Insufficient information? How about you make up a scenario where
> you would not attribute blame to Bush... Curious if you can...

I've got your answer. They'll do everything in their /power/
(touchy word) to undermine Bush -- literally to the point of
contributing to their own country's defeat just because it will mean
HE failed -- and then blame him when it (or a catastrophic attack)
happens.

Agreed... Somewhere along the way, Democrats have misinterpreted the
meaning of 'opposition party'. They think it means that no matter
what the topic, they need to take the opposite position to that of the
Republican Party. Any deviation results in expulsion - e.g.
Lieberman.

All comes down to the 2000 election. They NEVER got over it -- even during
that so-called period of "good will" after 9/11 (cue Hillary rolling her
eyes even then). Their hatred of GWB is so rabid that they'll actively root
for their own country's defeat. Pretty astounding.

Yep, "winning" an election by purging minorities from the voting rolls
(e.g. ChoicePoint) and then preventing a recount by a partisan based
court decision is anti-American and offensive to the democratic ideals
that the country was founded on.

But winning is everything, isn't it, William Sornson? Even when it is
bad for the country, apparently.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

William Sornson said:

[email hidden] (who?) anonymously snipes:

Quoted message said:

William Sornson wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>>>> And, hypothetically, if there happens to be an attack tomorrow,
>>>> would you blame Bush?
>>>
>>> Insufficient information provided to answer the question.
>>>
>> Insufficient information? How about you make up a scenario where
>> you would not attribute blame to Bush... Curious if you can...
>
> I've got your answer. They'll do everything in their /power/
> (touchy word) to undermine Bush -- literally to the point of
> contributing to their own country's defeat just because it will mean
> HE failed -- and then blame him when it (or a catastrophic attack)
> happens.

Agreed... Somewhere along the way, Democrats have misinterpreted the
meaning of 'opposition party'. They think it means that no matter
what the topic, they need to take the opposite position to that of the
Republican Party. Any deviation results in expulsion - e.g.
Lieberman.

All comes down to the 2000 election. They NEVER got over it -- even during
that so-called period of "good will" after 9/11 (cue Hillary rolling her
eyes even then). Their hatred of GWB is so rabid that they'll actively root
for their own country's defeat. Pretty astounding.

Yep, "winning" an election by purging minorities from the voting rolls
(e.g. ChoicePoint)

What was the sentence handed down to the people that did this?

Quoted message said:

and then preventing a recount by a partisan based
court decision is anti-American and offensive to the democratic ideals
that the country was founded on.

But winning is everything, isn't it, William Sornson? Even when it is
bad for the country, apparently.

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>> landotter wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Your government, not mine, voted to suspend habeus corpus
>>>> yesterday. Your government voted in favor of torture....
>>
>> Gee, I'm sorry I plonked THAT liar. {sarcams mode tubless viola}
>>
>> Torture is cutting off a screaming person's head.
>>
>> Torture is cutting off hands or feet or fingers or worse.
>>
>> Torture is burning someone with cigarettes or electrical wires.
>>
>> Torture is poking out an eye (or both).
>>
>> Loud music and bright lights ain't torture. (Water-boarding, which
>> most US agents undergo as part of their training, is specifically
>> prohibited.)
>
> Sornson is a willfully ignorant idiot if he does not understand
> psychological torture.

That I did not address that does not mean than I don't understand
it. Fear not, your ACLU pals will have terrorist suspects jury
shopping in no time....

Do to Mr. Sornson what has been done to prisoners by the US and its
agents, and he would change his mind in a hurry. Mr. Sornson would
even admit to it being torture if that was a requirement for it to
stop.

We should give Mr. Sornson the benefit of the doubt, and accept until
proven otherwise that he has stopped thinking for himself, and is just
following the party line.

Anyone who really believes that forcing people into painful positions
for hours on end, while subjecting them to temperature extremes,
deafening noise and sleep deprivation is not torture should be
committed to an institution for the criminally insane, for the
protection of society.

Mr. Sunset has been reading the blogs one sees.

That's an almost completely meaningless comment.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill Sornson said:

All comes down to the 2000 election. They NEVER got over it -- even during
that so-called period of "good will" after 9/11 (cue Hillary rolling her
eyes even then). Their hatred of GWB is so rabid that they'll actively root
for their own country's defeat.

What defeat? This isn't some game of touch football aginst some guys
you don't like and you're willing to play a little dirty to defeat the
other guys. This is reality where familes are being killed and
soldiers (our soldiers) are being maimed. It's not some ego trip for
chickenhawks to show off in. Get real.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[email hidden] (who?) anonymously snipes:

Quoted message said:

Agreed... Somewhere along the way, Democrats have misinterpreted the
meaning of 'opposition party'. They think it means that no matter what
the topic, they need to take the opposite position to that of the
Republican Party. Any deviation results in expulsion - e.g.
Lieberman.

Funny, whereas with the current administration anyone who quits in
disgust and describes the practical and intellectual shortcomings of
the current administration is described as "partisan" -- even guys who
served under seveal republican administrations with honor.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

landotter said:

GWB is gutting the constitution and responsible for the murder of
thousands, yet you worship him? Grow a penis or an ego or whatever you
need to come to your senses.

It's a brain that's missing. His politics are led by ego. Which is
why the macho posturing of GWB "Bring it on" and Cheney "Knowing what
we know now, I'd do it pretty much the same way" appeals to him.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if this is the question:

"In your heart of hearts, do you really believe that we would
be better off now had we not entered Iraq? "

This is the answer:

"I believe in my "heart of hearts" that Bin Laden (and/or his
followers) is still out there somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan
border trying to figure out a way to nuke us, while we idiotically fart
around in Iraq, destroying our own military power, putting the US
treasury into huge debt and frittering away our international prestige.
"

Hmmm... So as a country, we need to single task only, eh? Finish one
job before we start on another one, right? If so, are you advocating
we ignore Iran, N. Korea, Syria, etc. until we have captured bin Laden?
No wonder most Americans feel safer with Republicans in office than
Democrats -- we can walk, talk and chew at the same time (and do each
one well!)

Where did you pull that conclusion from? The FACT is that the special
operations troops that were deployed in Afghanistan to look for Bin
Laden were pulled out to invade Iraq. It is a FACT that much of the US
military that has been deployed to Iraq has been through three
rotations there. Multi-tasking is fine, but you had better damn well
have a plan for how to do it; the fiasco in Iraq has almost completely
eliminated our ability to multitask militarily. It is insanity to
exhaust our military capability in Iraq, with the side effect of
creating more people determined to kill Americans, when Bin Laden's
organization still sits out there plotting against us. We all know what
he is capable of, and we know that if he is allowed to carry out
another attack it will be as bad or probably worse than 9/11.

I don't advocate ignoring Iran, North Korea or Syria, but I oppose
threatening them militarily. They have in the recent pre-Bush past
responded positively to a carefully thought out non-threatening US
foreign policy, and I think they could do so again, but five years of
threats from Bush have made it difficult. Obviously, the Bush
administration is incapable of executing that type of foreign policy.
But there is no real military option. Whether you advocate military
multitasking against them or not, we no longer have the capability
because we are tied down in Iraq. That doesn't mean Bush will not give
the go-ahead for a bombing campaign against Iran. He might do it this
year, in fact, maybe even before the elections out of desperation at
losing Congress. But it will be a disaster. Oil prices will go through
the roof, we may suffer naval losses for the first time since the
beginning of the "War on Terror", and Iranian allies in Iraq and
Lebanon will respond in a way that turns the Middle East from Jordan to
Pakistan into a huge battlefield- the WWIII scenario. So if the choices
are "multitasking", meaning an attack on Iran, and ignoring them, I
choose ignore them. The Bush administration is clearly unable to deal
with the situation without resorting to a military response that will
ultimately prove disastrous. Let the EU take the lead, vote for a
Congress that will put some limits on Bush and hope for a more skilled
foreigh policy from the US beginning in 2009.

As I have shown here, I have a pretty good track record on this stuff.
I suggest that you think carefully about what I am saying.

Quoted message said:

I don't advocate ignoring Iran, North Korea or Syria, but I oppose
threatening them militarily. They have in the recent pre-Bush past
responded positively to a carefully thought out non-threatening US
foreign policy, and I think they could do so again, but five years of
threats from Bush have made it difficult. Obviously, the Bush
administration is incapable of executing that type of foreign policy.

Soooo We've 'invaded' those countries already? I need to read the
news more. Last I heard, we were pursuing diplomatic alternatives, but
leaving military options on the table. Only if we feel that a military
option is best will we pursue it. There is no evidence thus far to
come to any other conclusion.

Quoted message said:

But there is no real military option. Whether you advocate military
multitasking against them or not, we no longer have the capability
because we are tied down in Iraq. That doesn't mean Bush will not give
the go-ahead for a bombing campaign against Iran. He might do it this
year,

Unfortunately, sometimes military action is the RIGHT thing to do. War
is often just, my friend.

Quoted message said:

in fact, maybe even before the elections out of desperation at
losing Congress. But it will be a disaster. Oil prices will go through
the roof, we may suffer naval losses for the first time since the
beginning of the "War on Terror", and Iranian allies in Iraq and
Lebanon will respond in a way that turns the Middle East from Jordan to
Pakistan into a huge battlefield- the WWIII scenario.

You could be right. But not taking action could be worse. I'm not in
the meetings where the confidential briefings are given to the
President, so my interpretation of the best alternative is only a guess
based on conjecture (as is yours). Based on the non-military action
thus far, I have to conclude that political alternatives are currently
in the best interest of the US. We can only hope those countries
decide to 'play nice', but there needs to be consequences if they
don't. And unenforced U.N. resolutions are not consequences, by the
way.

Quoted message said:

So if the choices
are "multitasking", meaning an attack on Iran, and ignoring them, I
choose ignore them.

Dunno how 'multi-tasking' equates to war. You originally implied that
we should have concentrated solely on bin Laden, a figurehead with no
real military significance, instead of looking at the big picture and
acting appropriately.

Quoted message said:

The Bush administration is clearly unable to deal
with the situation without resorting to a military response that will
ultimately prove disastrous. Let the EU take the lead, vote for a
Congress that will put some limits on Bush and hope for a more skilled
foreigh policy from the US beginning in 2009.

Still stewing over the 2000 and 2004 elections, eh? Are you one of
those people who just can't believe that 62,040,606 Americans are that
stupid?

Quoted message said:

As I have shown here, I have a pretty good track record on this stuff.
I suggest that you think carefully about what I am saying.

As I have shown here, I have a pretty good track record on this stuff.
I suggest that you think carefully about what I am saying.
(Interesting how anyone can say that!)

landotter said:

Lets's review again:

Bill Sorenson is a dry drunk authority cultist whom supports a mass
murderer. End. Stop.

Even if that was true (which it's not), it shows nothing more than a
lack of class on your part. The fact Bill overcame a problem speaks
highly of his character and resolve - something that last time I
checked was a good thing.

Quoted message said:

Your government, not mine, voted to suspend habeus corpus yesterday.

That would mean they granted citizenship to the terrorists they've
captured. Fascinating.

Quoted message said:

Your government voted in favor of torture.

Y'see, most of y'all don't realize there's a definition of the word
"torture". In your fluffy world, it can mean anything you want it to,
but in the real world I live in, there's a legal definition. And the
administration has never condoned crossing that line (or even using
some of the harsher methods that are allowed under international law).
OTOH, there are a number of people who don't want to see harsh but
legal interrogation methods used on terrorists. Just make sure you
tell your elected representative that you feel that way, and want them
to vote that way. Others will see it differently.

<snipped the vulgar rant>

You'd do well to deal with facts rather than going out of your way to
show you can't answer the points Bill made.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Ed Pirrero said:

To any thinking person, it's torture, but not Bill...

Or to international law, but don't let that little fact influence your
perspective.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame