The failed Obama administration
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...







"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and no longer a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got some. Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's kids as pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics. Don't ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting our time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know somebody who
really reflects your views.


And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending up with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.



Neither does a political party that cares so little about America that it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah Palin.

The failed Obama administration
 

On Jan 22, 10:49*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

...





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and no longer a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got some. Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's kids as pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics. Don't ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting our time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know somebody who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending up with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about America that it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah Palin.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though you
would have learned by now.. later...

The failed Obama administration
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

...





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and no longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got some. Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's kids as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics. Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting our time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending up with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about America that it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple enough for you
to understand.

The failed Obama administration
 

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.

Eisboch



It's not quite that black or white.

With you, we know that.

But, for the rest of us there is the truth and there is not the truth or
lying.

The failed Obama administration
 

On Jan 22, 11:01*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and no longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got some. Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's kids as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics. Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting our time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending up with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about America that it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple enough for you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't give a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be more
simple?

The failed Obama administration
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 11:01 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and no
longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or
misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a
critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got some.
Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose
experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect
Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's kids as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find
unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics. Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting our time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending up
with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about America that
it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple enough for you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't give a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be more
simple?

===========


NPR and BBC, mentioned earlier.

The failed Obama administration
 

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.

--

"I am free of all prejudices. I hate every one equally."

W.C. Fields

The failed Obama administration
 

On Jan 22, 11:04*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:01 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

....
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and no
longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or
misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a
critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got some.
Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose
experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect
Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's kids as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find
unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics. Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting our time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending up
with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about America that
it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple enough for you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't give a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be more
simple?

===========

NPR and BBC, mentioned earlier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you only listen to left wing news, explains a lot really.

The failed Obama administration
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 11:04 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:01 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and no
longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or
misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a
critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got some.
Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose
experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect
Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's kids as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find
unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics.
Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting our
time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know
somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending up
with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about America that
it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah
Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple enough for
you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't give a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be more
simple?

===========

NPR and BBC, mentioned earlier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you only listen to left wing news, explains a lot really.
=============


I'd be happy to listen to a source which you consider balanced, or even
right-wing, as long as the stories are longer than 15 seconds. Please
provide one or two and I will listen.

The failed Obama administration
 

On Jan 22, 11:40*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:04 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

....
On Jan 22, 11:01 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and no
longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or
misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a
critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got some.
Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick around......

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose
experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect
Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's kids as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find
unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics.
Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting our
time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know
somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending up
with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about America that
it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah
Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple enough for
you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't give a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be more
simple?

===========

NPR and BBC, mentioned earlier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you only listen to left wing news, explains a lot really.
=============

I'd be happy to listen to a source which you consider balanced, or even
right-wing, as long as the stories are longer than 15 seconds. Please
provide one or two and I will listen.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot...

The failed Obama administration
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 11:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:04 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:01 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the
state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and no
longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or
misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a
critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will
not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got
some.
Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick
around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose
experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect
Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father
and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's kids
as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find
unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics.
Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting our
time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know
somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending
up
with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about America
that
it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah
Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple enough for
you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't give a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be more
simple?

===========

NPR and BBC, mentioned earlier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you only listen to left wing news, explains a lot really.
=============

I'd be happy to listen to a source which you consider balanced, or even
right-wing, as long as the stories are longer than 15 seconds. Please
provide one or two and I will listen.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot...

=============


I want in-depth stories, each of which last more than 15 seconds. If this
seems strange to you, go look at the second hand on a clock for 15 seconds.

Now, tell me about one or two news sources which you like, whose news
stories last longer than 15 seconds.

Do you have any?

The failed Obama administration
 

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.

What's the holdup? Disposition of those being held. As soon as that is
worked out, the prison will close.

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.

Keep in mind it is the professional military that objected to the harsh
tactics.

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.

The failed Obama administration
 

On Jan 22, 11:58*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:04 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Jan 22, 11:01 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the
state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and no
longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or
misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a
critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will
not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got
some.
Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick
around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose
experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect
Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father
and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's kids
as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find
unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics.
Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting our
time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know
somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending
up
with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about America
that
it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah
Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple qestion...
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple enough for
you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't give a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be more
simple?

===========

NPR and BBC, mentioned earlier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you only listen to left wing news, explains a lot really.
=============

I'd be happy to listen to a source which you consider balanced, or even
right-wing, as long as the stories are longer than 15 seconds. Please
provide one or two and I will listen.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot...

=============

I want in-depth stories, each of which last more than 15 seconds. If this
seems strange to you, go look at the second hand on a clock for 15 seconds.

Now, tell me about one or two news sources which you like, whose news
stories last longer than 15 seconds.

Do you have any?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already answered, try to keep up... Gotta' go now, can't waste my time
on folks who are intentionally uninformed...

The failed Obama administration
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 11:58 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:04 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:01 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the
state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and
no
longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or
misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a
critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will
not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got
some.
Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick
around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose
experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect
Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father
and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's
kids
as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find
unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics.
Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting
our
time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know
somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending
up
with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about America
that
it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah
Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple
qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though
you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple enough
for
you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't give a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be more
simple?

===========

NPR and BBC, mentioned earlier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you only listen to left wing news, explains a lot really.
=============

I'd be happy to listen to a source which you consider balanced, or even
right-wing, as long as the stories are longer than 15 seconds. Please
provide one or two and I will listen.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot...

=============

I want in-depth stories, each of which last more than 15 seconds. If this
seems strange to you, go look at the second hand on a clock for 15
seconds.

Now, tell me about one or two news sources which you like, whose news
stories last longer than 15 seconds.

Do you have any?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already answered, try to keep up... Gotta' go now, can't waste my time
on folks who are intentionally uninformed...


=====================



This was your response to my request for a source which you like:

"15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot..."


Your response does not name any sources. Since it is not possible to
understand the world based on 15 second news stories, the only possible
conclusion is that you have no sources which provide detailed information.

If this is not true, name your source(s).

The failed Obama administration
 

On Jan 22, 12:15*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:58 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Jan 22, 11:04 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:01 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the
state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and
no
longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or
misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a
critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will
not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got
some.
Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick
around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose
experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect
Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father
and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's
kids
as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find
unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics.
Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting
our
time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know
somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending
up
with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about America
that
it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah
Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple
qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though
you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple enough
for
you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't give a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be more
simple?

===========

NPR and BBC, mentioned earlier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you only listen to left wing news, explains a lot really.
=============

I'd be happy to listen to a source which you consider balanced, or even
right-wing, as long as the stories are longer than 15 seconds. Please
provide one or two and I will listen.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot...

=============

I want in-depth stories, each of which last more than 15 seconds. If this
seems strange to you, go look at the second hand on a clock for 15
seconds.

Now, tell me about one or two news sources which you like, whose news
stories last longer than 15 seconds.

Do you have any?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already answered, try to keep up... Gotta' go now, can't waste my time
on folks who are intentionally uninformed...

=====================

This was your response to my request for a source which you like:

"15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot..."

Your response does not name any sources. Since it is not possible to
understand the world based on 15 second news stories, the only possible
conclusion is that you have no sources which provide detailed information..

If this is not true, name your source(s).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already noted several sources. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, BBC world news,
60 mins, Fox news Sunday, Hardball... Your silly qualifiers (15
seconds) are just excuses. You really need to expand your input if you
wish to keep up...

The failed Obama administration
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 12:15 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:58 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:04 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:01 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the
state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and
no
longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws
or
misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such
a
critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we
will
not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got
some.
Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick
around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose
experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect
Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his
father
and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's
kids
as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find
unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these
characteristics.
Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting
our
time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know
somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby
ending
up
with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about
America
that
it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah
Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer
a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with
names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple
qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though
you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple enough
for
you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't give
a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be
more
simple?

===========

NPR and BBC, mentioned earlier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you only listen to left wing news, explains a lot really.
=============

I'd be happy to listen to a source which you consider balanced, or
even
right-wing, as long as the stories are longer than 15 seconds. Please
provide one or two and I will listen.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot...

=============

I want in-depth stories, each of which last more than 15 seconds. If
this
seems strange to you, go look at the second hand on a clock for 15
seconds.

Now, tell me about one or two news sources which you like, whose news
stories last longer than 15 seconds.

Do you have any?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already answered, try to keep up... Gotta' go now, can't waste my time
on folks who are intentionally uninformed...

=====================

This was your response to my request for a source which you like:

"15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot..."

Your response does not name any sources. Since it is not possible to
understand the world based on 15 second news stories, the only possible
conclusion is that you have no sources which provide detailed information.

If this is not true, name your source(s).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already noted several sources. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, BBC world news,
60 mins, Fox news Sunday, Hardball... Your silly qualifiers (15
seconds) are just excuses. You really need to expand your input if you
wish to keep up...

======================

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.

The failed Obama administration
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...







"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and no longer a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws or misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such a critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we will not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got some. Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his father and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's kids as pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these characteristics. Don't ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting our time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know somebody who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby ending up with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.
You have no principles.



Neither does a political party that cares so little about America that it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah Palin.

Or Bill "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski"
Clinton.

Or Hiliary "I don't know how the billing records just appeared on the
dining room table in the private residence part of the White Hosue."
Clinton.

Or Barack Hussein "led by the nose by Pelosi and Reid" Obama.

The failed Obama administration
 

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.

Doubtful.

What's the holdup? Disposition of those being held. As soon as that is
worked out, the prison will close.

Doubtful.

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.

Just means a few more illegal combatants will end up dying on the battle
field.

Keep in mind it is the professional military that objected to the harsh
tactics.

True, but the CIA didn't.

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.

Do you have proof of this?

The failed Obama administration
 

BAR wrote:
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.

Doubtful.

What's the holdup? Disposition of those being held. As soon as that is
worked out, the prison will close.

Doubtful.

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.

Just means a few more illegal combatants will end up dying on the battle
field.

Keep in mind it is the professional military that objected to the
harsh tactics.

True, but the CIA didn't.

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.

Do you have proof of this?


It's been covered in the printed and television news several times. It's
not my problem if you are unaware of this.

The failed Obama administration
 

On Jan 22, 12:30*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 12:15 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

....
On Jan 22, 11:58 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Jan 22, 11:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:04 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:01 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see the
state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats, and
no
longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws
or
misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in such
a
critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we
will
not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They got
some.
Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick
around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose
experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you elect
Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his
father
and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's
kids
as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find
unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these
characteristics.
Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be wasting
our
time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know
somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby
ending
up
with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about
America
that
it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or Sarah
Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to answer
a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with
names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple
qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers... Though
you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple enough
for
you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't give
a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be
more
simple?

===========

NPR and BBC, mentioned earlier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you only listen to left wing news, explains a lot really.
=============

I'd be happy to listen to a source which you consider balanced, or
even
right-wing, as long as the stories are longer than 15 seconds. Please
provide one or two and I will listen.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot...

=============

I want in-depth stories, each of which last more than 15 seconds. If
this
seems strange to you, go look at the second hand on a clock for 15
seconds.

Now, tell me about one or two news sources which you like, whose news
stories last longer than 15 seconds.

Do you have any?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already answered, try to keep up... Gotta' go now, can't waste my time
on folks who are intentionally uninformed...

=====================

This was your response to my request for a source which you like:

"15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot..."

Your response does not name any sources. Since it is not possible to
understand the world based on 15 second news stories, the only possible
conclusion is that you have no sources which provide detailed information.

If this is not true, name your source(s).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already noted several sources. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, BBC world news,
60 mins, Fox news Sunday, Hardball... Your silly qualifiers (15
seconds) are just excuses. You really need to expand your input if you
wish to keep up...

======================

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.. 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..

The failed Obama administration
 

On Jan 22, 12:44*pm, HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
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.

Doubtful.

What's the holdup? Disposition of those being held. As soon as that is
worked out, the prison will close.

Doubtful.

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.

Just means a few more illegal combatants will end up dying on the battle
field.

Keep in mind it is the professional military that objected to the
harsh tactics.

True, but the CIA didn't.

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.

Do you have proof of this?

It's been covered in the printed and television news several times. It's
not my problem if you are unaware of this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's unaware of it because you are Lobsta' boating the facts... snerk

The failed Obama administration
 

The failed Obama administration
 

On Jan 22, 12:58*pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 22, 12:44 pm, HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
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.
Doubtful.
What's the holdup? Disposition of those being held. As soon as that is
worked out, the prison will close.
Doubtful.
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.
Just means a few more illegal combatants will end up dying on the battle
field.
Keep in mind it is the professional military that objected to the
harsh tactics.
True, but the CIA didn't.
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.
Do you have proof of this?
It's been covered in the printed and television news several times. It's
not my problem if you are unaware of this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's unaware of it because you are Lobsta' boating the facts... snerk

Are you an ignorant ass naturally, do you work at it, or are you related
to Herring or Loogy?

The facts are simple: the Israelis treat their prisoners humanely. We do
not.

Hey, he asked simply for proof of your statement that:

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.

Are you going to prove it, or just throw around insults?

The failed Obama administration
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 12:30 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 12:15 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:58 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:40 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:04 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 11:01 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 22, 10:49 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message

...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 9:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...

"HK" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and speaking of diplomacy, I am glad to see
the
state
department
back in the hands of political and career diplomats,
and
no
longer
a
tool
of the pentagram, er, pentagon.
The only thing I find disturbing about some of the
rushed
confirmations is
the willingness to overlook/ignore some character flaws
or
misdeeds
in
some of the nominee's backgrounds because we are in
such
a
critical
"emergency" situation economically and politically.
Didn't Obama state in his inauguration address that we
will
not
sacrifice
principles in the execution of of policies?
This all sounds and feels disturbingly familiar.
Eisboch
Perhaps congress is looking for experience FAST. They
got
some.
Now,
if only
someone would talk Obama into asking Gates to stick
around.....

I suppose we could dredge up more like Mike Brown, whose
experience
running
a horse association served us so well.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -
Hummm, if exerience is an issue, why the hell did you
elect
Obama???

=================

I didn't really vote FOR Obama. I voted AGAINST two
things:

1) McCain, who's too wrapped up in trying to equal his
father
and
grandfather's achievements, probably using other people's
kids
as
pawns
to achieve that end.

2) Palin, who displayed two characteristics which I find
unacceptable
for high office, and I won't budge on these
characteristics.
Don't
ask
what they are. If you don't already know, we'll be
wasting
our
time
discussing them.
You could have voted for a third party candidate. You know
somebody
who
really reflects your views.

And throw away what might've been a slim margin, thereby
ending
up
with
the wrong person in the White House? Not a chance.

You have no principles.

Neither does a political party that cares so little about
America
that
it
would permit itself to be represented by George W. Bush or
Sarah
Palin.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again, straying off the subject when asked to
answer
a
question. We have answered several for you this morning, with
names
and sources, you have not managed to answer even one simple
qestion..
Just the same old twisted justifications and non-answers...
Though
you
would have learned by now.. later...

============

They've all been answered. But, the answers were not simple
enough
for
you
to understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You didn't answer what you consider "grown up news", you didn't
give
a
list or detractors beyond "I have a list in my car" what could be
more
simple?

===========

NPR and BBC, mentioned earlier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you only listen to left wing news, explains a lot really.
=============

I'd be happy to listen to a source which you consider balanced, or
even
right-wing, as long as the stories are longer than 15 seconds.
Please
provide one or two and I will listen.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot...

=============

I want in-depth stories, each of which last more than 15 seconds. If
this
seems strange to you, go look at the second hand on a clock for 15
seconds.

Now, tell me about one or two news sources which you like, whose news
stories last longer than 15 seconds.

Do you have any?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already answered, try to keep up... Gotta' go now, can't waste my time
on folks who are intentionally uninformed...

=====================

This was your response to my request for a source which you like:

"15 seconds? So, you really are not interested in "the other side". Are
the stories on NPR and the BBC limited to 15 seconds?

Just the question you ask shows you have never really sought out
information other than what suits your ideology, you are uninformed by
choice, holy ****, I had at least given you more than that. No wonder
you can never really answer questions, if I were in your shoes I would
be embarassed too. Again, it explains a lot..."

Your response does not name any sources. Since it is not possible to
understand the world based on 15 second news stories, the only possible
conclusion is that you have no sources which provide detailed
information.

If this is not true, name your source(s).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Already noted several sources. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, BBC world news,
60 mins, Fox news Sunday, Hardball... Your silly qualifiers (15
seconds) are just excuses. You really need to expand your input if you
wish to keep up...

======================

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.

====================
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.

The failed Obama administration
 

The failed Obama administration
 

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 22, 12:44 pm, HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
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.
Doubtful.
What's the holdup? Disposition of those being held. As soon as that is
worked out, the prison will close.
Doubtful.
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.
Just means a few more illegal combatants will end up dying on the
battle
field.
Keep in mind it is the professional military that objected to the
harsh tactics.
True, but the CIA didn't.
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.
Do you have proof of this?
It's been covered in the printed and television news several times. It's
not my problem if you are unaware of this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's unaware of it because you are Lobsta' boating the facts... snerk


Are you an ignorant ass naturally, do you work at it, or are you related
to Herring or Loogy?

The facts are simple: the Israelis treat their prisoners humanely. We do
not.

What proof do you have to support your assertion?

The failed Obama administration
 

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...

The failed Obama administration
 

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 22, 12:58 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 22, 12:44 pm, HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
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.
Doubtful.
What's the holdup? Disposition of those being held. As soon as
that is
worked out, the prison will close.
Doubtful.
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.
Just means a few more illegal combatants will end up dying on the
battle
field.
Keep in mind it is the professional military that objected to the
harsh tactics.
True, but the CIA didn't.
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.
Do you have proof of this?
It's been covered in the printed and television news several times.
It's
not my problem if you are unaware of this.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
He's unaware of it because you are Lobsta' boating the facts... snerk
Are you an ignorant ass naturally, do you work at it, or are you related
to Herring or Loogy?

The facts are simple: the Israelis treat their prisoners humanely. We do
not.

Hey, he asked simply for proof of your statement that:

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.

Are you going to prove it, or just throw around insults?


Any idiot, even you, can google it.

Your claim, you prove it.

The failed Obama administration
 

wrote:
On Jan 22, 12:44 pm, HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
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.
Doubtful.
What's the holdup? Disposition of those being held. As soon as that is
worked out, the prison will close.
Doubtful.
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.
Just means a few more illegal combatants will end up dying on the battle
field.
Keep in mind it is the professional military that objected to the
harsh tactics.
True, but the CIA didn't.
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.
Do you have proof of this?
It's been covered in the printed and television news several times. It's
not my problem if you are unaware of this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's unaware of it because you are Lobsta' boating the facts... snerk


Here ya go, ****head. Not the reference I had in mind, just the first
one that popped up.

http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog...i-journal.html


Note it is a Kuwaiti reporting on Israel treatment.


Now, is there a URL anywhere that indicates you, Loogy or Herring
separately or collectively have an IQ that is over 90?

The failed Obama administration
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 22, 12:44 pm, HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
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.
Doubtful.
What's the holdup? Disposition of those being held. As soon as
that is
worked out, the prison will close.
Doubtful.
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.
Just means a few more illegal combatants will end up dying on the
battle
field.
Keep in mind it is the professional military that objected to the
harsh tactics.
True, but the CIA didn't.
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.
Do you have proof of this?
It's been covered in the printed and television news several times.
It's
not my problem if you are unaware of this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's unaware of it because you are Lobsta' boating the facts... snerk


Are you an ignorant ass naturally, do you work at it, or are you
related to Herring or Loogy?

The facts are simple: the Israelis treat their prisoners humanely. We
do not.

What proof do you have to support your assertion?


Hehehe. Go foch yourself. ..!..


Or, google it.

The failed Obama administration
 

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.

The failed Obama administration
 

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....

The failed Obama administration
 

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.

The failed Obama administration
 

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.

The failed Obama administration
 

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...

The failed Obama administration
 

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.

You are the ******* calling my house soliciting donations?

The failed Obama administration
 

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.

If you don't go and jump out the window right now you are an ass.

One news story which you think is exclusive to your magical sources.

The failed Obama administration
 

HK wrote:


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.

Do you have proof of this?


It's been covered in the printed and television news several times. It's
not my problem if you are unaware of this.

While it would be nice if that was correct, as with most statements from
Harry, it isn't.

Israeli Interrogation Methods Are State Terror
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0706/israel.htm

TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT
Israel's Interrogation of
Palestinians from the Occupied Territories

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1994/israel/

The Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law

http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v4i3/israel43.htm

UN rips Israel's interrogation methods// Tactics amount to torture,
panel says
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4386929.html

The failed Obama administration
 

HK wrote:


The facts are simple: the Israelis treat their prisoners humanely. We do
not.

Israel: Palestinian prisoners suffering inhuman conditions of detention
on hunger strike

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) expresses its grave
concern at the hunger strike observed by a large number of political
prisoners detained in Israel.


Send Alerted by its member organizations Al Haq, the Palestinian
Center for Human Rights (PCHR) and the Public Committee Against Torture
in Israel (PCATI), the FIDH recalls that thousands of Palestinian
political prisoners are currently on hunger strike in order to protest
against their detention conditions and their treatment inside Israel
Prison Service facilities.

The FIDH is extremely worried as the strike, that started on 15th August
in 4 Israeli prisons, is now spreading throughout other detention
facilities.

According the FIDH member organizations, the PCHR, Al Haq and PCATI,
prisoners are routinely subjected to torture, degrading treatment and
humiliation and especially to humiliating strip searches. Moreover,
political prisoners are often placed in solitary confinement for
extended periods of time. Since 15th August 2004, Israeli authorities
have taken harsh measures from the moment some prisoners declared their
intention to strike, such as transferring dozens of “prison leaders”
from general sections to solitary confinement, prohibiting all visits by
families and lawyers to the prisoners.

The FIDH had already published a mission report in 2003 denouncing the
bad conditions of detention of Palestinian prisoners in Israel and the
impossibility for their families to visit them. (Palestinian Detainees
in Israel: Inhuman Conditions of Detention, July 2003:
http://www.fidh.org/communiq/2003/i...) .

The FIDH recalls that such measures contravene namely to the UN Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, applicable in situations
where individuals are deprived of their liberty.

The FIDH recalls that all individuals who are deprived of their liberty
shall be treated with humanity and with respect for their human dignity.

Considering that the prisoners’ demands are in conformity with the
international standards ensuring a human treatment to individuals
deprived of their liberty, the FIDH, together with its member
organizations, urges the Israeli authorities to:

ensure better conditions of detention to the Palestinian political
prisoners detained in Israel;
respect its international obligations under the ICCPR, the ICESCR, the
Convention Against Torture;
abide by the international Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners.

The failed Obama administration
 

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.

Without any solid evidence to the contrary, this will have to serve as
the truth in the matter.


This article does state that the UN feels the Israeli's torture their
political prisoners. As you said, this article will have to serve as
the truth in this matter.