Re: OT: WAAAAHHHH!

Tom Sherman said:

still me said:

Tom Sherman said:

Please remember that the current USian political right is NOT part
of the reality based community.

No, but they do a heck of a marketing and advertising job to convince
significant numbers of the people that they are. It's really very
impressive how they manage to pull it off as a long term strategy -
it's brainwashing at it's finest. Look at how convinced guys like
Sorni are as they regurgitate utter [censored].

The left would try to do the same, but they don't have anywhere near
the consistent coordination to pull it off.

The right-wing owns almost all of the mainstream media outlets in the
US.

Total [censored], of course, but ever if it were true the MEMBERS of the media
vote 85% Democrat. Look it up.

Ron Ruff said:

Ron Ruff said:

BTW... who is Chuck Schumer?

Sorry... I should have read down a little farther. Well now that I've
read one quote of his, I can say that I don't agree with any of it.

But just so you know, he's a leading Democrat (NOT a Republican), and the
whole basis the Dems were using to block Mukasey's nomination (the troll
that started this thread) was that he refused to offer a legal opinion on
something that's classified and to which he's not privy. Schumer was all
set to go along with the block, until his own words advocating MUCH WORSE
(literal torture) were played back for all to hear.

The phrase, "Hoist by his own petard" comes to mind.

BS

Ron Ruff said:

Ron Ruff said:

BTW... who is Chuck Schumer?

Sorry... I should have read down a little farther. Well now that I've
read one quote of his, I can say that I don't agree with any of it.

But just so you know, he's a leading Democrat (NOT a Republican), and the
whole basis the Dems were using to block Mukasey's nomination (the troll
that started this thread) was that he refused to offer a legal opinion on
something that's classified and to which he's not privy. Schumer was all
set to go along with the block, until his own words advocating MUCH WORSE
(literal torture) were played back for all to hear.

The phrase, "Hoist by his own petard" comes to mind.

BS

Bill 'Sorni' Sornson said:

Tom Sherman said:

still me said:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:06:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Please remember that the current USian political right is NOT part
> of the reality based community.
No, but they do a heck of a marketing and advertising job to convince
significant numbers of the people that they are. It's really very
impressive how they manage to pull it off as a long term strategy -
it's brainwashing at it's finest. Look at how convinced guys like
Sorni are as they regurgitate utter [censored].

The left would try to do the same, but they don't have anywhere near
the consistent coordination to pull it off.

The right-wing owns almost all of the mainstream media outlets in the
US.

Total [censored], of course, but ever if it were true the MEMBERS of the media
vote 85% Democrat. Look it up.

OK Sorni, which television and radio networks and large city daily
newspapers are NOT owned by large corporations [1]?

[1] By definition right-wing, since they are constructs of capital, not
labor.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Bill 'Sorni' Sornson said:

Tom Sherman said:

still me said:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:06:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Please remember that the current USian political right is NOT part
> of the reality based community.
No, but they do a heck of a marketing and advertising job to convince
significant numbers of the people that they are. It's really very
impressive how they manage to pull it off as a long term strategy -
it's brainwashing at it's finest. Look at how convinced guys like
Sorni are as they regurgitate utter [censored].

The left would try to do the same, but they don't have anywhere near
the consistent coordination to pull it off.

The right-wing owns almost all of the mainstream media outlets in the
US.

Total [censored], of course, but ever if it were true the MEMBERS of the media
vote 85% Democrat. Look it up.

OK Sorni, which television and radio networks and large city daily
newspapers are NOT owned by large corporations [1]?

[1] By definition right-wing, since they are constructs of capital, not
labor.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Bill Sornson said:

still me said:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:06:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email hidden]> wrote:

{CONTEXT??????????????????????????????}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please remember that the current USian political right is NOT part of
the reality based community.

Quoted message said:

No, but they do a heck of a marketing and advertising job to convince
significant numbers of the people that they are. It's really very
impressive how they manage to pull it off as a long term strategy -
it's brainwashing at it's finest. Look at how convinced guys like
Sorni are as they regurgitate utter [censored].

The left would try to do the same, but they don't have anywhere near
the consistent coordination to pull it off.

Moron, 85% of the mainstream media is liberal and pro-Democrat. It's
amazing that any conservative and/or Republican ever gets elected.

Really, 85% of the mainstream media (television, radio, large
circulation news-weekly magazines and daily newspapers) are NOT OWNED by
corporations?

The primary news source of most USians, network (broadcast and cable)
television, is COMPLETELY owned by large corporations.

How reporters vote is not that important. What they are allowed to
report is.

By the way, many Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, ARE right-wing in
most of their policies.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Bill Sornson said:

still me said:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:06:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email hidden]> wrote:

{CONTEXT??????????????????????????????}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please remember that the current USian political right is NOT part of
the reality based community.

Quoted message said:

No, but they do a heck of a marketing and advertising job to convince
significant numbers of the people that they are. It's really very
impressive how they manage to pull it off as a long term strategy -
it's brainwashing at it's finest. Look at how convinced guys like
Sorni are as they regurgitate utter [censored].

The left would try to do the same, but they don't have anywhere near
the consistent coordination to pull it off.

Moron, 85% of the mainstream media is liberal and pro-Democrat. It's
amazing that any conservative and/or Republican ever gets elected.

Really, 85% of the mainstream media (television, radio, large
circulation news-weekly magazines and daily newspapers) are NOT OWNED by
corporations?

The primary news source of most USians, network (broadcast and cable)
television, is COMPLETELY owned by large corporations.

How reporters vote is not that important. What they are allowed to
report is.

By the way, many Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, ARE right-wing in
most of their policies.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:35:20 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman said:

still me said:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:06:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Please remember that the current USian political right is NOT part
> of the reality based community.

No, but they do a heck of a marketing and advertising job to convince
significant numbers of the people that they are. It's really very
impressive how they manage to pull it off as a long term strategy -
it's brainwashing at it's finest. Look at how convinced guys like
Sorni are as they regurgitate utter [censored].

The left would try to do the same, but they don't have anywhere near
the consistent coordination to pull it off.

The right-wing owns almost all of the mainstream media outlets in the
US.

Total [censored], of course, but ever if it were true the MEMBERS of the media
vote 85% Democrat. Look it up.

I think you're referring to a survey of journalists. That's different
than owners.

You're paranoia is getting sad.

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:35:20 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman said:

still me said:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:06:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Please remember that the current USian political right is NOT part
> of the reality based community.

No, but they do a heck of a marketing and advertising job to convince
significant numbers of the people that they are. It's really very
impressive how they manage to pull it off as a long term strategy -
it's brainwashing at it's finest. Look at how convinced guys like
Sorni are as they regurgitate utter [censored].

The left would try to do the same, but they don't have anywhere near
the consistent coordination to pull it off.

The right-wing owns almost all of the mainstream media outlets in the
US.

Total [censored], of course, but ever if it were true the MEMBERS of the media
vote 85% Democrat. Look it up.

I think you're referring to a survey of journalists. That's different
than owners.

You're paranoia is getting sad.

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:54:05 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ron Ruff said:

Ron Ruff said:

BTW... who is Chuck Schumer?

Sorry... I should have read down a little farther. Well now that I've
read one quote of his, I can say that I don't agree with any of it.

But just so you know, he's a leading Democrat (NOT a Republican), and the
whole basis the Dems were using to block Mukasey's nomination (the troll
that started this thread) was that he refused to offer a legal opinion on
something that's classified and to which he's not privy.

No. The people voting against Mukasey are voting against him in part
for not saying waterboarding is illegal. They're not asking to him
make a determination about something they don't know about - they're
asking him to say if waterboarding, which is well-defined, is illegal.
Pretty simple.

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:54:05 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ron Ruff said:

Ron Ruff said:

BTW... who is Chuck Schumer?

Sorry... I should have read down a little farther. Well now that I've
read one quote of his, I can say that I don't agree with any of it.

But just so you know, he's a leading Democrat (NOT a Republican), and the
whole basis the Dems were using to block Mukasey's nomination (the troll
that started this thread) was that he refused to offer a legal opinion on
something that's classified and to which he's not privy.

No. The people voting against Mukasey are voting against him in part
for not saying waterboarding is illegal. They're not asking to him
make a determination about something they don't know about - they're
asking him to say if waterboarding, which is well-defined, is illegal.
Pretty simple.

Jay Beattie said:

Yes, he cannot answer that question until after full consideration of
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, US law and other relevant treaty
law -- like the Convention Against Torture. Sorry. You may want arm-
waiving condemnation of the Bush administration (which is deserved --
don't get me wrong), but that is not very strategic.

It's much simpler than that. Saying that waterboarding is open to
interpretation as to whether or not it's torture is fatuous and
political. It's like asking the guy "We've heard reports of people in
the US government shooting subdued prisoners in the back of the head.
I'm not asking you to comment on whether or not you think those
reports are true, but rather I want to have confidence that if it's
discovered that those practices are occuring, you will prosecute them.
Do you believe that shooting subdued prisoners in the back of the head
is illegal?"

That's very straighforward.

BTW, the statement that waterboarding is torture is not condemnation
of the Bush administration unless they are doing it. And if they are
doing it, it has to be condemned.

Jay Beattie said:

Yes, he cannot answer that question until after full consideration of
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, US law and other relevant treaty
law -- like the Convention Against Torture. Sorry. You may want arm-
waiving condemnation of the Bush administration (which is deserved --
don't get me wrong), but that is not very strategic.

It's much simpler than that. Saying that waterboarding is open to
interpretation as to whether or not it's torture is fatuous and
political. It's like asking the guy "We've heard reports of people in
the US government shooting subdued prisoners in the back of the head.
I'm not asking you to comment on whether or not you think those
reports are true, but rather I want to have confidence that if it's
discovered that those practices are occuring, you will prosecute them.
Do you believe that shooting subdued prisoners in the back of the head
is illegal?"

That's very straighforward.

BTW, the statement that waterboarding is torture is not condemnation
of the Bush administration unless they are doing it. And if they are
doing it, it has to be condemned.

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 17:13:46 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Much of the material is classified, and he literally can not offer an
informed opinion. He's not been briefed on it.

He can give an informed opinion on watergboarding if the questioner
describes it in detail. It's been described in detail by
congresspeople and the press. There is nothing classified about that.

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 17:13:46 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Much of the material is classified, and he literally can not offer an
informed opinion. He's not been briefed on it.

He can give an informed opinion on watergboarding if the questioner
describes it in detail. It's been described in detail by
congresspeople and the press. There is nothing classified about that.

On Nov 4, 6:30 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 17:13:46 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Much of the material is classified, and he literally can not offer an
informed opinion. He's not been briefed on it.

He can give an informed opinion on watergboarding if the questioner
describes it in detail. It's been described in detail by
congresspeople and the press. There is nothing classified about that.

He needs to study the law. There is nothing in the law that
specifically refers to waterboarding. The law is subject to
interpretation (as the Bush administration has shown us).

It is not about being right. It is not about condemning
waterboarding. It is about options. If the nominee starts ranting
against waterboarding, then options fly out the window -- one of those
options being a swift end to waterboarding by administration support
of anti-waterboarding legislation (for Bill, it's 10 USC Sec. 801 --
relating to interrogation of persons in the custody of the Army).
Mulkasey is sending the right signals. Sometimes you have to watch for
the cues and shut your mouth. I see judges do this all the time, and
Mulkasey is no different.

Also, the CIA is now saying it prohibits water boarding. It might be
that the administration is looking for a face-saving way out of the
John Yoo memos. I would let Mulkasey hit us with some double-speak
because I think he will ultimately do the right thing when he takes
office and will get the administration to end the torture. Yes, I
could be wrong. -- Jay Beattie.

PS to John -- I don't doubt that waterboarding is torture, but this is
not an area where Congress can just call it torture and prevent it --
like mandating civil rights. The Executive branch calls the shots on
treaties -- Jimmy Carter terminated a couple unilaterally. Prisoners
in other countries are not protected by the Constitution, and only the
Executive can deal with them. Only the Executive can really stop
torture, and that means getting someone the Executive will listen to
-- not a castrated AG nominee who has called the Executive a bunch of
law breakers (even if they are). Once he does that, forget it.

On Nov 4, 6:30 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 17:13:46 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Much of the material is classified, and he literally can not offer an
informed opinion. He's not been briefed on it.

He can give an informed opinion on watergboarding if the questioner
describes it in detail. It's been described in detail by
congresspeople and the press. There is nothing classified about that.

He needs to study the law. There is nothing in the law that
specifically refers to waterboarding. The law is subject to
interpretation (as the Bush administration has shown us).

It is not about being right. It is not about condemning
waterboarding. It is about options. If the nominee starts ranting
against waterboarding, then options fly out the window -- one of those
options being a swift end to waterboarding by administration support
of anti-waterboarding legislation (for Bill, it's 10 USC Sec. 801 --
relating to interrogation of persons in the custody of the Army).
Mulkasey is sending the right signals. Sometimes you have to watch for
the cues and shut your mouth. I see judges do this all the time, and
Mulkasey is no different.

Also, the CIA is now saying it prohibits water boarding. It might be
that the administration is looking for a face-saving way out of the
John Yoo memos. I would let Mulkasey hit us with some double-speak
because I think he will ultimately do the right thing when he takes
office and will get the administration to end the torture. Yes, I
could be wrong. -- Jay Beattie.

PS to John -- I don't doubt that waterboarding is torture, but this is
not an area where Congress can just call it torture and prevent it --
like mandating civil rights. The Executive branch calls the shots on
treaties -- Jimmy Carter terminated a couple unilaterally. Prisoners
in other countries are not protected by the Constitution, and only the
Executive can deal with them. Only the Executive can really stop
torture, and that means getting someone the Executive will listen to
-- not a castrated AG nominee who has called the Executive a bunch of
law breakers (even if they are). Once he does that, forget it.

Bill Sornson said:

If I cut off the head of an innocent "infidel" or blow up a bunch of women
and children in a cafe, then being forced to eat my chicken parmesan all
alone (with my prayer rug and pristine Koran) wouldn't be too harsh. Sorry.

Do we have people who have been tried and convicted of these crimes in
custody?

Quoted message said:

Leading Democrat Bush-bashing Senator AND proponent of torture.

I don't know many Demos that I like and Bush-bashing seems to be quite
a popular sport these days.

Quoted message said:

(Note, Bush
has said repeatedly that the US does not torture. Period. Water-boarding,
if indeed it's been used, has NOT been declared illegal

Well, it is obviously torture, illegal or not.

Quoted message said:

Congress has had at least two chances to outlaw it and has pussed out both
times. Typically.

Figures... that's why I'm not optimistic about the future...
especially if Hillary gets elected.

Quoted message said:

Ask yourself this: does the US torture its own people? MANY have been
water-boarded as part of their training

I torture *myself* as part of my training... that doesn't mean I think
the "authorites" should subject other people to torture... or me for
that matter.

Quoted message said:

it's scary but doesn't hurt or cause any lasting harm.

Really? That's comforting. Can we subject you to anything provided
that it doesn't cause any lasting *physical* harm? Immediately at
least... who knows what might happen days, months or years down the
road. Would you be ok with that?

Quoted message said:

But if you really think that a scenario where a nuke could go off in a US
city is implausible, then all I can say is I hope you're right. They come
in pretty small packages nowadays.

A scenario where we *know* a nuke is about to go off, *and* we have
the mastermind in custody is a B movie script... not real life. And
frankly I can't imagine that such a person would divulge information
in any case.

Bill Sornson said:

If I cut off the head of an innocent "infidel" or blow up a bunch of women
and children in a cafe, then being forced to eat my chicken parmesan all
alone (with my prayer rug and pristine Koran) wouldn't be too harsh. Sorry.

Do we have people who have been tried and convicted of these crimes in
custody?

Quoted message said:

Leading Democrat Bush-bashing Senator AND proponent of torture.

I don't know many Demos that I like and Bush-bashing seems to be quite
a popular sport these days.

Quoted message said:

(Note, Bush
has said repeatedly that the US does not torture. Period. Water-boarding,
if indeed it's been used, has NOT been declared illegal

Well, it is obviously torture, illegal or not.

Quoted message said:

Congress has had at least two chances to outlaw it and has pussed out both
times. Typically.

Figures... that's why I'm not optimistic about the future...
especially if Hillary gets elected.

Quoted message said:

Ask yourself this: does the US torture its own people? MANY have been
water-boarded as part of their training

I torture *myself* as part of my training... that doesn't mean I think
the "authorites" should subject other people to torture... or me for
that matter.

Quoted message said:

it's scary but doesn't hurt or cause any lasting harm.

Really? That's comforting. Can we subject you to anything provided
that it doesn't cause any lasting *physical* harm? Immediately at
least... who knows what might happen days, months or years down the
road. Would you be ok with that?

Quoted message said:

But if you really think that a scenario where a nuke could go off in a US
city is implausible, then all I can say is I hope you're right. They come
in pretty small packages nowadays.

A scenario where we *know* a nuke is about to go off, *and* we have
the mastermind in custody is a B movie script... not real life. And
frankly I can't imagine that such a person would divulge information
in any case.

Ron Ruff said:

...
A scenario where we *know* a nuke is about to go off, *and* we have
the mastermind in custody is a B movie script... not real life. And
frankly I can't imagine that such a person would divulge information
in any case.

Or they would give false information, which would not be discovered to
be false until too late. This is another reason why torture is a poor
way to get information.

The real reason for torture is the desire to hurt others, typically out
of anger for its supporters, and sadism for its practitioners.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?