Koran-burning plan draws worldwide condemnation

[heckofajobbrownie]

You need 24-hour medical care.

[calfoxwc]

another nonsense initiated personal attack by Heck. "yawn"

 

Face it, we have your number. You have limited ability to be honest at all,

 

limited ability to present a logical case for why you disagree with everybody,

 

but never letting yourself be challenged.

 

I figure a guy who is frightened of being challenged for putting up his beliefs

 

in initiating a thread, is a coward. But go ahead, keep up the personal attacks,

 

the criticizing with no relevant substance, and the frantic changing of thread subjects

 

so you can still try to prop up your pseudo-intellectualism.

 

I don't remember when you have added any kind of intelligent discussion to this place...

[Westside Steve]

And you'd be wrong. No one has ever heard of him. I'd never heard of him either. Not one person I know has. Until he was suddenly our intellectual forefather who we all took our cues from.

 

And you shouldn't be surprised that you're wrong.

 

I guess I shouldn't.

I overestimated you and your deep thinking pals.

Oops.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

As for this, "Well since you're the self appointed arbiter of truth where was the outrage from you or any other Democrat faithful?"

 

Are you joking? That ad was widely condemned by Democrats. Come back to reality, man. It's nice here.

 

Seems to me your Dems were hard pressed to distance themselves at the time.

So you thought Petraeus was on the right path through the Iraq war?

 

Maybe I forgot your support.

 

 

As for this, "You think its a sad but unavoidable consequence of the NYT political jihad."

 

You. Are. The. King.

 

 

Yes. We. Know.

But would you wish for the Times to research the victims of the Obama "rendition" policy and use it as front page news nearly every day?

Why do you suppose they don't?

(That's a real question if you're capable of that)

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're remembering wrong. Just about everyone distanced themselves from the ad, and then added that it was being used as a political prop and was wasting everyone's time.

 

So I know you have this idea and your head that the Democrats didn't condemn the ad, and you like that idea where it is, but it's not factually accurate. And that should matter.

 

As for the Times covering Obama's detention and surveillance policies, I see those stories all the time. Do you want me to find some for you? Or can you find them yourself?

 

I guess you don't read the Times.

 

But you seem to have that idea in your head as well, and I don't want to extract two fallacies from your head in one afternoon. They make you so happy/angry.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here you go, Steve. I remember reading this one. Because it was last week.

 

NYT Story on Obama rendition policy - 9/8/10

 

"While the alleged abuses occurred during the Bush administration, the ruling added a chapter to the Obama administration’s aggressive national security policies.

 

Its counterterrorism programs have in some ways departed from the expectations of change fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of former President George W. Bush’s approach.

 

Among other policies, the Obama national security team has also authorized the C.I.A. to try to kill a United States citizen suspected of terrorism ties, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the basis for their imprisonment without trial, and continued the C.I.A.’s so-called extraordinary rendition program of prisoner transfers — though the administration has forbidden torture and says it seeks assurances from other countries that detainees will not be mistreated."

 

Whoops.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Here you go, Steve. I remember reading this one. Because it was last week.

 

NYT Story on Obama rendition policy - 9/8/10

 

"While the alleged abuses occurred during the Bush administration, the ruling added a chapter to the Obama administration’s aggressive national security policies.

 

Its counterterrorism programs have in some ways departed from the expectations of change fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of former President George W. Bush’s approach.

 

Among other policies, the Obama national security team has also authorized the C.I.A. to try to kill a United States citizen suspected of terrorism ties, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the basis for their imprisonment without trial, and continued the C.I.A.’s so-called extraordinary rendition program of prisoner transfers — though the administration has forbidden torture and says it seeks assurances from other countries that detainees will not be mistreated."

 

Whoops.

These types of articles really have picked up recently. I hope they continue to do so. I understand why everyone stood down when he was elected - give him a chance to change things. But there was a sense that the marches and protests and op-eds had finally culminated in a change in policy, and we havent seen that at all. It'd be interesting to see things actually change sometime soon, or to see the marches start up again. But it seems that it is just as likely that Obama uses his political capital with the left to continue these policies with less criticism than republicans would have received.

[heckofajobbrownie]

It should be noted, however, that the rendition program is a lot less problematic and palatable once you take out the part where the suspects are tortured, often by foreign governments with our help and approval.

 

As a practical matter, you're going to have to snatch terror suspects in foreign countries and take them somewhere for interrogation, and to disrupt plots. Obviously, there should be a program in place to do that.

 

So as a liberal, the real problem is what you do with them once you have them, i.e. not attaching electrodes to their temples. So while they note the torture prohibition as a place where Obama has differed from Bush, that prohibition covers some of the more troublesome extra-legal aspects of the other programs mentioned as well.

[calfoxwc]

ah baloney. Obama "outlaws" pretty much everything in his speeches.

 

Then he appoints another czar to do exactly what Obama says they don't do.

 

I swear Obama and co must have been trained by KGB agents. They lie.

 

And, all this talk about the differences with torture? Is this like the libs caring soooo much

about the tragedies of our soldiers in batttle...

 

only to completely dismiss the subject - they can't care less, about our soldiers in battle now?

 

Heck is a freakin wildcatting progressive wonkboy, but he tortures us with his drivel all too often.

 

Total bs.

[Westside Steve]

Here you go, Steve. I remember reading this one. Because it was last week.

 

NYT Story on Obama rendition policy - 9/8/10

 

"While the alleged abuses occurred during the Bush administration, the ruling added a chapter to the Obama administration’s aggressive national security policies.

 

Its counterterrorism programs have in some ways departed from the expectations of change fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of former President George W. Bush’s approach.

 

Among other policies, the Obama national security team has also authorized the C.I.A. to try to kill a United States citizen suspected of terrorism ties, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the basis for their imprisonment without trial, and continued the C.I.A.’s so-called extraordinary rendition program of prisoner transfers — though the administration has forbidden torture and says it seeks assurances from other countries that detainees will not be mistreated."

 

Whoops.

 

Uh wow one shot mostly at the Bush administration proves that the NYT is all over the story?

That's what you see as the Times going overboard in it's condemnation of Obama's war crimes?????

Please.

 

And:

<<

Robin Roberts: "I want to ask you something about an ad that caught everybody’s, a lot of people's attention. It was in The New York times. It was placed by the liberal group MoveOn.org. In the ad, it says, ‘General Petraeus or General Betray Us, cooking the books.’ That got a lot of reaction from both sides of the aisle."

 

George Stephanopoulos: "Boy, it sure did. And it really put Democrats on the defensive yesterday. You had 30 Republican senators signing a letter calling on the Democrats to reject the ad, to repudiate the ad. There’s going to be a resolution introduced in the House today to do that as well. And it put the Democrats in a bit of a bind. They want the support of MoveOn.org, so you saw the presidential candidates saying, ‘Well, we don’t like what they said,’ but they wouldn’t repudiate it."

 

And apparently the follks at MoveOn just took down the ad.

Hmmmmm.....

 

>>

WSS

[Westside Steve]

http://www.alternet.org/rights/147808/aclu...orture_policies

 

And should this be investigated with more vigor and printed on the front page three or four times a week?

Or more????

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1145998/posts

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Haha. Steve, stop digging.

[Westside Steve]

Haha. Steve, stop digging.

 

 

Why, when this is all you have to offer?

WSS

 

[calfoxwc]

Everytime Heck gets his butt kicked, he goes with

 

the "haha" kind of quips.

 

He thinks that's serious discussion.

 

What a sad state of affairs. Mr. "knowitall" doesn't know diddley,

 

goes "haha" when cornered with the truth, and complains that

 

there isn't any "serious discussion" on the board.

[Paxton]

You need 24-hour medical care.

To get the liberal fascist poison out of his system...I hear they have a special machine for that: it's called REALITY.

 

[Westside Steve]

Everytime Heck gets his butt kicked, he goes with

 

the "haha" kind of quips.

 

Sometimes I wonder if he believes his shit or is just hard wired into bickering with whatever anyone says.

 

Does he think that one NYT article containing a mild rebuke equals 30 plus front pages in a row?

That Bush was a war criminal but Obama's a freedom fighter?

That now all of a sudden an unwinnable war and more US casualties than ever is OK?

That his party really didn't have the balls to call out MoveOn (assuming he knows who they are now)

WSS

[Mr. T]

heck is a computer.

 

No I'll take that back, he is more like one of those dippy women you see in the crowd on Good Morning America who cheer every stupid thing they do on that show.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Sometimes I wonder if he believes his shit or is just hard wired into bickering with whatever anyone says.

 

Does he think that one NYT article containing a mild rebuke equals 30 plus front pages in a row?

That Bush was a war criminal but Obama's a freedom fighter?

That now all of a sudden an unwinnable war and more US casualties than ever is OK?

That his party really didn't have the balls to call out MoveOn (assuming he knows who they are now)

WSS

 

Oh, man. You are a delight.

 

Ever heard the phrase "apples and oranges"? Can you do any sort of comparison with any modicum of fairness? And why would I ever imagine this is still an open question? It's only been four years of the same lazy arguments and demagoguery.

 

Sorry I don't have to time or the desire to dig through every article the Times has run on Obama's anti-terrorism policies in the last few years. I found you the one I just read. Last week. The one that you said doesn't exist. And then you compared it to coverage of a worldwide scandal of prisoner abuse and torture, a policy that Bush started and Obama ended. Not realizing that the comparison on the coverage of Bush and Obama detainee policy would be ...between the coverage of Bush and Obama detainee policy, not Bush detainee policy and Obama rendition policy.

 

Jesus. You're a grown-ass man.

 

As for war crimes, what are the alleged war crimes of the Bush administration, and what are the alleged war crimes of the Obama administration? Try running a comparison there. You might understand why one got more coverage than the other. Hint: because the policies differed.

 

[calfoxwc]

an apple and an orange have more nads than you do.

 

You still haven't manned up and opened up a new thread all by yourself. Coward.

 

"cluck, cluck, cluck" (that's a hen. You don't have the nads of a rooster, Heck)

[heckofajobbrownie]

Copying something from Drudge = manhood.

 

Got it.

[calfoxwc]

Another dishonest diversion from you, Heck? Really?

 

Nobody ever said you had to cut and paste from Drudge.

 

Cut and paste from wherever you like. It would be your very own thread.

 

You would be STARTING the subject, instead of jumping in antagonistically

 

on most anybody who starts one.

 

That way, you would be STARTING a subject to talk about, instead of

 

whining about our subjects.

 

If you are too afraid, whiney, then stop your constant complaining about

 

subjects you don't like because they criticize your corrupt somebeech president, etc.

 

Go ahead. It won't hurt you physically. You don't have to cry or anything.

 

WHEN are you going to run out of excuses, Heck? First you say it's my fault,

 

so I said I would stay out of your thread unless you drag me into it, then you whine

 

that we only cut and paste from drudge, which is completely bogus,

 

then you complain about not having serious discussions, but you are too

 

frightened to start one.

 

Go ahead. Get all brave inside, and contribute your own subject. Unless you're frightened

 

that you would criticize yourself for a stupid subject you would be bringing up, which would

 

be quite par for the course. Heck, do you need a hankie?