|
The failed Obama administration
wrote in message
... On Jan 22, 1:38 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 22, 1:04 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You like 60 Minutes??? Aren't you people being instructed by the Garlique salesman to hate CBS? And, it appears we agree on BBC, although you pretended not to notice that when you claimed not to like my sources.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You really need to start to read. I did not say anywhere I did not like the BBC.. ==================== No, but when I mentioned it, you dissed it. Nope, never did that and you know it... ==================== I simply noted that your stated sources limit you to one point of view. As to CBS, I don't always agree, but I watch for the same reasons I watch Chris Matthews, I am interested in all viewpoints, not just the ones I agree with. That is the difference between me and folks like you and Harry... I don't consider any part of the country "fly over", I want to be informed, even if it changes my opinion.. ==================== Most of your sources involve sitting and watching. I need to receive information at a higher rate of speed. I have an actual life from 6:00 AM until midnight most days. More excuses, you don't know what I do or where I work. Yes, I happen to be able to watch news while I am working, so what? So, where do you get your news at "a high rate of speed"? I mean, you already dismissed 15 second news clips, or doesn't that count for you. Fact is Joe, like most far left liberals, you limit your input, guess it's easier that way, but it still leaves you terribly uninformed... ================ By the way, my day job keeps me on the phone all day long. No TV possible. After dinner, I'm usually practicing music. No TV possible. Reading is my primary source of news, and you have no problem with that unless you invent one. Radio comes next. All I am saying is by your own admission you get your news from the BBC and NPR.. You did not note with several opportunities any other sources which is fine as long as you are satisfied with only left leaning opinion... ================== Next time I have a free moment, I'll go through the pile of printed material in my living room and make a list just for you. When pigs can fly. |
The failed Obama administration
On Jan 22, 1:38*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Jan 22, 1:32 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message .... On Jan 22, 1:04 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You like 60 Minutes??? Aren't you people being instructed by the Garlique salesman to hate CBS? And, it appears we agree on BBC, although you pretended not to notice that when you claimed not to like my sources.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You really need to start to read. I did not say anywhere I did not like the BBC.. ==================== No, but when I mentioned it, you dissed it. Nope, never did that and you know it... ==================== I simply noted that your stated sources limit you to one point of view. As to CBS, I don't always agree, but I watch for the same reasons I watch Chris Matthews, I am interested in all viewpoints, not just the ones I agree with. That is the difference between me and folks like you and Harry... I don't consider any part of the country "fly over", I want to be informed, even if it changes my opinion.. ==================== Most of your sources involve sitting and watching. I need to receive information at a higher rate of speed. I have an actual life from 6:00 AM until midnight most days. More excuses, you don't know what I do or where I work. Yes, I happen to be able to watch news while I am working, so what? So, where do you get your news at "a high rate of speed"? I mean, you already dismissed 15 second news clips, or doesn't that count for you. Fact is Joe, like most far left liberals, you limit your input, guess it's easier that way, but it still leaves you terribly uninformed... ================ Reading is one way of getting news at a much higher rate of speed than television, which wastes time with commercials. I'll make you a deal: Find 10 news stories which you think I haven't been exposed to. Find them via YOUR news sources, even if all you give me is a one-line description of the TV story. If I can't find 8 out of 10 via my sources and prove it to you, then you're correct. Start early Saturday. I won't have time to play until then. Pfffftttt.... ============= OK. *Give me one story. Just one. If you refuse, then you've admitted that your claim was pure nonsense. One news story which you think is exclusive to your magical sources.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - My frekin' God.. I never said anything about exclusivity, I said "the limited sources you listen to lean left". You are impossible, just admit you are not interested in opposing points of veiw and we can end this sillyness... |
The failed Obama administration
wrote in message
... On Jan 22, 1:38 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 22, 1:32 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 22, 1:04 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You like 60 Minutes??? Aren't you people being instructed by the Garlique salesman to hate CBS? And, it appears we agree on BBC, although you pretended not to notice that when you claimed not to like my sources.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You really need to start to read. I did not say anywhere I did not like the BBC.. ==================== No, but when I mentioned it, you dissed it. Nope, never did that and you know it... ==================== I simply noted that your stated sources limit you to one point of view. As to CBS, I don't always agree, but I watch for the same reasons I watch Chris Matthews, I am interested in all viewpoints, not just the ones I agree with. That is the difference between me and folks like you and Harry... I don't consider any part of the country "fly over", I want to be informed, even if it changes my opinion.. ==================== Most of your sources involve sitting and watching. I need to receive information at a higher rate of speed. I have an actual life from 6:00 AM until midnight most days. More excuses, you don't know what I do or where I work. Yes, I happen to be able to watch news while I am working, so what? So, where do you get your news at "a high rate of speed"? I mean, you already dismissed 15 second news clips, or doesn't that count for you. Fact is Joe, like most far left liberals, you limit your input, guess it's easier that way, but it still leaves you terribly uninformed... ================ Reading is one way of getting news at a much higher rate of speed than television, which wastes time with commercials. I'll make you a deal: Find 10 news stories which you think I haven't been exposed to. Find them via YOUR news sources, even if all you give me is a one-line description of the TV story. If I can't find 8 out of 10 via my sources and prove it to you, then you're correct. Start early Saturday. I won't have time to play until then. Pfffftttt.... ============= OK. Give me one story. Just one. If you refuse, then you've admitted that your claim was pure nonsense. One news story which you think is exclusive to your magical sources.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - My frekin' God.. I never said anything about exclusivity, I said "the limited sources you listen to lean left". You are impossible, just admit you are not interested in opposing points of veiw and we can end this sillyness... ============= You never saw me say I was not interested in other points of view. |
The failed Obama administration
wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:04:07 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:14:16 -0500, BAR wrote: HK wrote: Any idiot, even you, can google it. Your claim, you prove it. http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v4i3/israel43.htm All onlookers are invited tio either prove or disprove what is on this link if they feel it is not true. This is just somebody making statements. It is not official policy statements from the Israeli government. Without any solid evidence to the contrary, this will have to serve as the truth in the matter. I'm going to start writing stuff and referencing it and claiming that it is authoritative information. It might have helped you to avoid looking like an imbecile if you had READ what is at that link, and taken note of the source. You expected him to read before running his mouth? Take a piece of good advice: Believing in miracles around here will make you sick to your stomach. |
The failed Obama administration
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:04:07 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:14:16 -0500, BAR wrote: HK wrote: Any idiot, even you, can google it. Your claim, you prove it. http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v4i3/israel43.htm All onlookers are invited tio either prove or disprove what is on this link if they feel it is not true. This is just somebody making statements. It is not official policy statements from the Israeli government. Without any solid evidence to the contrary, this will have to serve as the truth in the matter. I'm going to start writing stuff and referencing it and claiming that it is authoritative information. It might have helped you to avoid looking like an imbecile if you had READ what is at that link, and taken note of the source. I read what was at the link and looked at the source. These are the same people who believe that if you look at someone harshly you can be charged with assault. When evaluating source of the material you have to evaluate the motives of that source. These two items speak volumes about the Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law Apply Now! Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Fellow "Effective Activism Beyond the Courtroom" Workshop February 6 |
The failed Obama administration
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:19:02 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:04:07 -0500, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:14:16 -0500, BAR wrote: HK wrote: Any idiot, even you, can google it. Your claim, you prove it. http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v4i3/israel43.htm All onlookers are invited tio either prove or disprove what is on this link if they feel it is not true. This is just somebody making statements. It is not official policy statements from the Israeli government. Without any solid evidence to the contrary, this will have to serve as the truth in the matter. I'm going to start writing stuff and referencing it and claiming that it is authoritative information. It might have helped you to avoid looking like an imbecile if you had READ what is at that link, and taken note of the source. I read what was at the link and looked at the source. These are the same people who believe that if you look at someone harshly you can be charged with assault. When evaluating source of the material you have to evaluate the motives of that source. These two items speak volumes about the Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law Apply Now! Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Fellow "Effective Activism Beyond the Courtroom" Workshop February 6 So, you agree with Harry? Okay! No. |
The failed Obama administration
"HK" wrote in message ... The Israelis have an interesting set of techniques with which they torture their suspects: they set them up in dorms, let them do their own cooking, allow contact family and conjugal visits, kill them with kindness, and get a hell of a lot more information than we do. Cool. I have a call in to Osama bin Laden offering him a suite at the Boston Harbor Hotel. Eisboch |
The failed Obama administration
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:02:19 -0500, HK wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:44:08 -0500, HK wrote: Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Well, I expect the Obama admin will be significantly more "honest" than the Bush admin. I do not expect perfection. I do not expect Obama, Biden, Clinton, or Holder will tell bold-faced lies to the American people about what their admin is doing and why. Clinton already has. How can a person or administration be "more honest"? Either you are honest or you are not. It's not quite that black or white. Well, yes and no. Let's take the Gitmo deal that President Obama has promised to close. In a year. Maybe more than that. But he is closing it. When is up in the air. :) So that's one example of the truth of closing down Gitmo not being exactly true. How about torture. President Obama is closing down "black" stations, ending "harsh" interrogation techniques restricting interrogation to the Army Field Manual which, as I remember, has something like 20 techniques for gathering information. Unless, of course, it's absoutely necessary to use other, more creative techniques. That's another example of the truth of restricting harsh interrogation not being exactly true. So in a sense, Harry is right. The Gitmo gulag will be shut down in a year or less. Period. Not more. More likely, less. Nope - can't be done. Obama has given his administration 120 days to review the system and provide recommendations. That's six months. Another 120 days to review and decide. Then disposition will begin. If, and only if, they can: 1 - come up with an acceptable location to house the detainees. This will require a maximum security prison - not a minimum security prison. They have already proven to be a danger to guards and themselves. 2 - a decision on how to handle the individuals in custody legal cases has to be made - and it might mean they will still be tried in military court under military rules - that hasn't been decided yet. If they are to be tried under criminal statutes, where is that going to be? And the housing situation become more acute depending on where and how they are to be tried. 3 - Let's assume that Gitmo is going to be shut down - how long will it take to build a new maximum military prison in John Murtha's District? He's already volunteered his district to house these individuals. That's just three major problems facing the administration and that's not going to take a year to do - more like three or beyond. What's the holdup? Disposition of those being held. As soon as that is worked out, the prison will close. See above. The Army Field Manual has been revised since your days in the service. It no longer is distributed on clay tablets. Further, it likely is to be revised some one in that area, since some of the changes forced during the Bush mis-administration were not exactly to the military's liking. We're talking two different things. This isn't the KUBARK or HRETM - there are 20 accepted non-coercive techniques that you can use for interrogation that the US Army (and other services) can use under Article 3 (and amendments) of the Geneva Convention to obtain information. Keep in mind it is the professional military that objected to the harsh tactics. Um...I'm not at all sure about that. You have a reference? The Israelis have an interesting set of techniques with which they torture their suspects: they set them up in dorms, let them do their own cooking, allow contact family and conjugal visits, kill them with kindness, and get a hell of a lot more information than we do. And if you believe that, you are more naive than it is possible for any one individual to be. -- Math illiteracy affects 8 out of every 5 people. |
The failed Obama administration
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
The Gitmo gulag will be shut down in a year or less. Period. Not more. More likely, less. Nope - can't be done. Obama has given his administration 120 days to review the system and provide recommendations. That's six months. Another 120 days to review and decide. Then disposition will begin. You know, when I lived in Connecticut and attended public school there, I was taught the average month had 30 days, and that six of those average months would add up to 180 days, not 120 days. No wonder you get off the chart gasoline mileage out of that eTec...your miles are much shorter than everyone else's. :) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com