Politics: The Wrath of Veep

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon May 12, 2008 23:19:31

mpmcgraw wrote:Yes, Bush and high ranking CIA officials are heartless devils that enjoy torture when it has no results! (who cares what these CIA guys say? They are a part of the Bush admin after all)

In fact, almost everyone in the CIA is a career civil servant. And Bush kept Clinton's CIA chief George Tennant until 2004.

The full quote from Orwell:

" Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. "

The point is, torturers do what they do for its own sake. Orwell, somewhat sadistic himself (there's interesting evidence that he based the character O'Brien on himself).

by **pacino** » Mon May 12, 2008 23:19:33

you're the one pushing views upon others and looking at things in a black/white manner. you'll find that things are not always so easy to pigeonhole.

the bush administration is most definitely willfully ignorant of many laws. to deny this is to be willfully ignorant yourself. that's why it's difficult for them to get any of my respect or trust in regards to something such as this. and when all of the presidential candidates are against an idea, it's all going to be moot. the military should not be in the business of torture.

what does it mean to you to be 'economically conservative'?

by **mpmcgraw** » Mon May 12, 2008 23:19:42

TenuredVulture wrote:
mpmcgraw wrote:As long as the CIA insists that they have stopped terrorist attacks because of information gained through torture and there is no evidence otherwise I am fine with using torture.

Yes, believe the CIA--an organization that didn't know that Pakistan and India had developed nuclear weapons until they tested them, an organization that insisted that the Castro regime would collapse when a bunch of Batista supporters landed on the beach, an organization that has repeatedly failed.

There are many instances of the CIA hitting the bull's eye, but you will remember the screw ups.

For example the CIA knew that China had developed a new ballistic missile submarine class long before the chinese public did and when the submarines were still enclosed in dry docks that satellites could obviously not see through.

This is pretty much going to end up being semantics so...

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon May 12, 2008 23:20:39

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
Phan In Phlorida wrote:Video of Bill O'Reilly meltdown (from his Inside Edition days)

*** WARNING: F-bombs ***

Hee hee

No one hate Bill O'Reilly more than me, but I really fail to see how this is a big deal. (Unless it's to point out that he was once on Inside Edition--puts the whole Katie Couric thing in a new light.)

Just pickin' on Bill O. Woulda put it in the YouTubes thread, but it ain't a YouTube (didn't know how to give it an embedded player winder).

I saw it on Wonkette as well.

by **dajafi** » Tue May 13, 2008 00:11:45

mpmcgraw wrote:Yes, Bush and high ranking CIA officials are heartless devils that enjoy torture when it has no results! (who cares what these CIA guys say? They are a part of the Bush admin after all) Surely they would have plenty to gain through the redundant torturing of human beings!

I am not one who buys into the opinion that you and many others share that Bush is not a well intentioned man. I truly believe that Bush and the people who surround him are well intentioned albeit utterly incompetent. Thus I trust that he is not sadistic. Not exactly a leap of faith for me, but to each his own.

You can view Bush however you like, but I think your view of him is quite sensationalized. More like a character in a horror movie than an actual human being.

My point is if torture is as redundant as you say it is and Bush/CIA are lying as you say they are, what exactly do they stand to gain from all of this?

If this is in response to me... well, there's probably not much point in continuing a conversation. I tried to address your argument. You responded by babbling about Bush and telling me what my "views" are. About which, by the way, you're wrong.

The line about the "Chinese public," though, is really, really funny.

by **pacino** » Tue May 13, 2008 00:15:41

56% of voters in West Virginia said that race isn't a factor in their vote. So 44% do factor in race...?

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue May 13, 2008 01:15:33

Feith just said on The Daily Show that he's a Phillies fan. Yuck.

by **philliesphhan** » Tue May 13, 2008 01:24:34

Monkeyboy wrote:Feith just said on The Daily Show that he's a Phillies fan. Yuck.

Technically, he said this hours ago as I was there! The interview was extremely long and after the show Jon says "Wow, what a funny show"

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue May 13, 2008 08:11:43

pacino wrote:56% of voters in West Virginia said that race isn't a factor in their vote. So 44% do factor in race...?

So Hillary is going to carry the 44% that factor in race by 70-30% and the 56% that don't 65-35%? But somehow we'll blame this on people being racist.

by **pacino** » Tue May 13, 2008 08:39:23

jerseyhoya wrote:
pacino wrote:56% of voters in West Virginia said that race isn't a factor in their vote. So 44% do factor in race...?

So Hillary is going to carry the 44% that factor in race by 70-30% and the 56% that don't 65-35%? But somehow we'll blame this on people being racist.

Well, 44% are racist.

by **The Red Tornado** » Tue May 13, 2008 08:53:21

pacino wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
pacino wrote:56% of voters in West Virginia said that race isn't a factor in their vote. So 44% do factor in race...?

So Hillary is going to carry the 44% that factor in race by 70-30% and the 56% that don't 65-35%? But somehow we'll blame this on people being racist.

Well, 44% are racist.

I bet a chunk of that 44% are african americans who wish to vote for an african american

by **pacino** » Tue May 13, 2008 10:11:55

The Red Tornado wrote:
pacino wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
pacino wrote:56% of voters in West Virginia said that race isn't a factor in their vote. So 44% do factor in race...?

So Hillary is going to carry the 44% that factor in race by 70-30% and the 56% that don't 65-35%? But somehow we'll blame this on people being racist.

Well, 44% are racist.

I bet a chunk of that 44% are african americans who wish to vote for an african american

they are 3% of the state's population sir

by **The Red Tornado** » Tue May 13, 2008 10:40:13

pacino wrote:
The Red Tornado wrote:
pacino wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
pacino wrote:56% of voters in West Virginia said that race isn't a factor in their vote. So 44% do factor in race...?

So Hillary is going to carry the 44% that factor in race by 70-30% and the 56% that don't 65-35%? But somehow we'll blame this on people being racist.

Well, 44% are racist.

I bet a chunk of that 44% are african americans who wish to vote for an african american

they are 3% of the state's population sir

6-7% cant be a chunk?

by **Woody** » Tue May 13, 2008 10:54:33

Obama could get boost from...FAR RIGHT EVANGELICALS...?!

Robert Novak :? seems to think that some right-wing evangelicals may swing toward Barack Obama — and that Mike Huckabee, the former Republican governor of Arkansas and former presidential candidate, could be one of them.

BAHA

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue May 13, 2008 12:58:50

"All the kitchen table issues that everybody talks to me about are ones that the next president can actually do something about, if he actually cares about it." - HRC

by **dajafi** » Tue May 13, 2008 13:19:03

jerseyhoya wrote:
"All the kitchen table issues that everybody talks to me about are ones that the next president can actually do something about, if he actually cares about it." - HRC

Right, because the president has UNLIMITED POWER to impact day-to-day economic considerations...

She's really lost it.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue May 13, 2008 13:21:28

dajafi wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
"All the kitchen table issues that everybody talks to me about are ones that the next president can actually do something about, if he actually cares about it." - HRC

Right, because the president has UNLIMITED POWER to impact day-to-day economic considerations...

She's really lost it.

I was more laughing at her acknowledging the next president is going to be a 'he'

by **jeff2sf** » Tue May 13, 2008 13:25:57

Could someone let me know what Pat Tillman's mom's end goal is? Is she trying to push for the idea that Tillman was murdered as opposed to the victim of accidental friendly fire?

by **dajafi** » Tue May 13, 2008 13:49:54

jerseyhoya wrote:
dajafi wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
"All the kitchen table issues that everybody talks to me about are ones that the next president can actually do something about, if he actually cares about it." - HRC

Right, because the president has UNLIMITED POWER to impact day-to-day economic considerations...

She's really lost it.

I was more laughing at her acknowledging the next president is going to be a 'he'

Yeah, I know. That too...

by **BuddyGroom** » Tue May 13, 2008 14:02:40

jeff2sf wrote:Could someone let me know what Pat Tillman's mom's end goal is? Is she trying to push for the idea that Tillman was murdered as opposed to the victim of accidental friendly fire?

It has been speculated - and I'm not implying that it has been speculated by anyone worth paying attention to - that Tillman was about to speak out against the war and the president, and so was silenced in an incident made to look accidental. Just repeating something I've heard - not trying to validate it or support it.

Grieving parents can be led to believe all sorts of things - I still recall Len Bias' mother claiming that he never did drugs but the Lord took him to scare kids from using drugs.

With the military having covered up that Tillman died by friendly fire, I can understand the parents having a lot of questions.

Archived

Politics: The Wrath of Veep