Torturing SOB's
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 3:22 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!


If you are an innocent civilian and you are killed by having your head
chopped off by a scimitar or blown off by a cruise missile, does it matter?


Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the
leaders. Payback is messy.

Torturing SOB's
 

Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:26:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/10/2014 1:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.




I was recently reading about some of the lead up events to WWII, mainly
because some of the current global issues especially with regard to
Russia and Putin are somewhat similar. Japan was pushed into a corner
big time with sanctions, etc.

Roosevelt faced stiff domestic opposition to entering the war. He tried
to goad Germany into attacking a US convoy transporting aid to Great
Britain to create a justification for a war declaration. The Germans
didn't fall for the trap.

Instead, sanctions imposed on Japan were stiffened, leading to the
so-called "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor. Most historians are now of
the opinion that it wasn't a surprise. It was anticipated.


Anticipated by whom? Are these historians opining that we knew of the
attack and just left the ships there to be demolished?

Which ships were sunk? Old, obsolete ships. The Carrier groups and more
modern BBs were at sea. A few days before they left their slips.

Torturing SOB's
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 2:26 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/10/2014 1:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese
civilians.




I was recently reading about some of the lead up events to WWII, mainly
because some of the current global issues especially with regard to
Russia and Putin are somewhat similar. Japan was pushed into a corner
big time with sanctions, etc.

Roosevelt faced stiff domestic opposition to entering the war. He tried
to goad Germany into attacking a US convoy transporting aid to Great
Britain to create a justification for a war declaration. The Germans
didn't fall for the trap.

Instead, sanctions imposed on Japan were stiffened, leading to the
so-called "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor. Most historians are now of
the opinion that it wasn't a surprise. It was anticipated.



I don't think the attack was unexpected, but the timing of it was.


I very much think they knew exactly when and where the attack was going to
happen. Even the Japanese filling burn barrels in the yard of the DC
embassy was a direct clue to war being eminent.

Torturing SOB's
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.


I am of the old school. You attack me, I destroy you. Payback is a bitch!

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 3:22 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!


If you are an innocent civilian and you are killed by having your head
chopped off by a scimitar or blown off by a cruise missile, does it matter?


Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the
leaders. Payback is messy.


If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:50:32 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 3:22 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!


If you are an innocent civilian and you are killed by having your head
chopped off by a scimitar or blown off by a cruise missile, does it matter?


Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the
leaders. Payback is messy.


If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious.

So I suppose, using your logic, if you hit some ice while driving, go
off the road and kill a pedestrian, it would be the moral equivalent,
to you, of my purposely shooting you between the eyes with my Kimber
..45.

That makes sense to you, Toad?
--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/10/14 7:01 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:50:32 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 3:22 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!


If you are an innocent civilian and you are killed by having your head
chopped off by a scimitar or blown off by a cruise missile, does it matter?


Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the
leaders. Payback is messy.


If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious.

So I suppose, using your logic, if you hit some ice while driving, go
off the road and kill a pedestrian, it would be the moral equivalent,
to you, of my purposely shooting you between the eyes with my Kimber
.45.

That makes sense to you, Toad?



Have yourself tested for dementia. Seriously. What difference does it
make to a victim if he/she is an innocent bystander and is killed by the
actions of terrorists or spreaders of democracy? In both instances, the
victim is dead as a result of the stupidity of men.



--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:44:51 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 7:01 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:50:32 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 3:22 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!


If you are an innocent civilian and you are killed by having your head
chopped off by a scimitar or blown off by a cruise missile, does it matter?


Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the
leaders. Payback is messy.


If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious.

So I suppose, using your logic, if you hit some ice while driving, go
off the road and kill a pedestrian, it would be the moral equivalent,
to you, of my purposely shooting you between the eyes with my Kimber
.45.

That makes sense to you, Toad?



Have yourself tested for dementia. Seriously. What difference does it
make to a victim if he/she is an innocent bystander and is killed by the
actions of terrorists or spreaders of democracy? In both instances, the
victim is dead as a result of the stupidity of men.

The question had to do with moral equivalency, a subject you brought
up.

I can understand your desire to deflect, however. Those corners aren't
nice, are they Toad?
--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/10/14 9:23 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:44:51 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 7:01 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:50:32 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 3:22 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!


If you are an innocent civilian and you are killed by having your head
chopped off by a scimitar or blown off by a cruise missile, does it matter?


Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the
leaders. Payback is messy.


If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious.

So I suppose, using your logic, if you hit some ice while driving, go
off the road and kill a pedestrian, it would be the moral equivalent,
to you, of my purposely shooting you between the eyes with my Kimber
.45.

That makes sense to you, Toad?



Have yourself tested for dementia. Seriously. What difference does it
make to a victim if he/she is an innocent bystander and is killed by the
actions of terrorists or spreaders of democracy? In both instances, the
victim is dead as a result of the stupidity of men.

The question had to do with moral equivalency, a subject you brought
up.

I can understand your desire to deflect, however. Those corners aren't
nice, are they Toad?


D'oh. I was hoping you'd figure it out...but...no.
There is no morality in either act...

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 3:22 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!


If you are an innocent civilian and you are killed by having your head
chopped off by a scimitar or blown off by a cruise missile, does it matter?


Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the
leaders. Payback is messy.


If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious.


If you is dead, you lack an opinion.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:30:59 AM UTC-5, John H. wrote:

So dig your head out of the sand and keep that in mind.



herring, you have to dig your head out of your ASS, not sand.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:

Say what?
You got evicted so you burned down your house?
Talk about criminally insane......

Shut up retard, you cant even read properly. How DID you ever get to be even a Janitor?

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/10/2014 10:50 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:

Say what?
You got evicted so you burned down your house?
Talk about criminally insane......

Shut up retard, you cant even read properly. How DID you ever get to be even a Janitor?


We don't expect don to keep up...

Torturing SOB's
 

On Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:27:03 AM UTC-5, KC wrote:

Shut up retard, you cant even read properly. How DID you ever get to be even a Janitor?


We don't expect don to keep up...

No ****...LMAO. dicklicker is too obsessed with the leather-clad bikers like he saw in Toronto in the Gay Bar.

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/11/2014 12:45 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:27:03 AM UTC-5, KC wrote:

Shut up retard, you cant even read properly. How DID you ever get to be even a Janitor?


We don't expect don to keep up...

No ****...LMAO. dicklicker is too obsessed with the leather-clad bikers like he saw in Toronto in the Gay Bar.


He's not real hard to figure out.

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/10/2014 10:50 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:

Say what?
You got evicted so you burned down your house?
Talk about criminally insane......

Shut up retard, you cant even read properly. How DID you ever get to be even a Janitor?


We know how you got to be unemployed.

Torturing SOB's
 

Let it snowe
On 12/10/2014 10:50 PM, wrote:
- hide quoted text -
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:

Say what?
You got evicted so you burned down your house?
Talk about criminally insane......

Shut up retard, you cant even read properly. How DID you ever get to be even a Janitor?


"We know how you got to be unemployed."


Inquiring minds would like to know.
I'm sure he's convinced Giselle he can't work because of the pig valve in his worthless heart but I'm convinced he got himself into some kind of trouble
Maybe he can't drive a truck over the international border because of legal problems.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:27:57 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 9:23 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:44:51 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 7:01 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:50:32 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 3:22 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!


If you are an innocent civilian and you are killed by having your head
chopped off by a scimitar or blown off by a cruise missile, does it matter?


Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the
leaders. Payback is messy.


If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious.

So I suppose, using your logic, if you hit some ice while driving, go
off the road and kill a pedestrian, it would be the moral equivalent,
to you, of my purposely shooting you between the eyes with my Kimber
.45.

That makes sense to you, Toad?



Have yourself tested for dementia. Seriously. What difference does it
make to a victim if he/she is an innocent bystander and is killed by the
actions of terrorists or spreaders of democracy? In both instances, the
victim is dead as a result of the stupidity of men.

The question had to do with moral equivalency, a subject you brought
up.

I can understand your desire to deflect, however. Those corners aren't
nice, are they Toad?


D'oh. I was hoping you'd figure it out...but...no.
There is no morality in either act...
--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)

Torturing SOB's
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:27:57 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 9:23 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:44:51 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 7:01 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:50:32 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 6:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 3:22 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:54:17 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:50 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:39:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/10/14 2:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/10/14 1:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's the problem with people like BOA. He selectively ignores some
things if it doesn't serve his argument.


The trouble with "people like Luddite" is they can't help dragging
partisan politics into a subject titled "Torturing SOB's."

There is plenty of debate going on about the release of this report and
it's not limited to the right-leaning media outlets. Even MSNBC has
raised some questions regarding the motivations of Feinstien and her
committee. The committee never bothered interviewing any of the people
who were actually involved in the interrogation program as research for
the report. It started as a conclusion which then had to be justified
with selectively chosen accusations and facts. You are correct. Many
of the same people were chastising the CIA for not doing enough shortly
after 9/11.

Finger pointing and evading responsibility. That's all.

You just evade the point of my post, which is that U.S. Government
engaged in widespread torture.
Maybe you don't believe it happened. Or maybe you think it's okay.
But you want to get into political ****-slinging.
I don't. Sorry about that.
You can argue politics with Scotty. Go right ahead.



We used to be able to claim the high moral ground because even in
warfare, we supposedly did not engage in war-making on civilians to the
extent our "enemies" did. World War II put that claim to death, of
course, with our massive bombings of mostly civilian parts of cities in
Germany and Japan, and the horrors we perpetrated on Vietnamese civilians.



In war there are no innocents. Who was building the war machines?


Now you sound like the Jihadists...and in a way, of course, you are
correct. The point, of course, is that our hands are bloody, too.

Which makes the beheadings, etc, OK, right?

Toad, you've become the hit of the party. WAFJ!


Are the beheadings worse than firebombings or cruise missiles that miss
their mark? Which is less moral?

Think 'intention' Toad. That may help you.

WAFJ!


If you are an innocent civilian and you are killed by having your head
chopped off by a scimitar or blown off by a cruise missile, does it matter?


Yes. To the survivors. Be a supporter of the conflict or next to the
leaders. Payback is messy.


If you are dead, you are dead, Bilious.

So I suppose, using your logic, if you hit some ice while driving, go
off the road and kill a pedestrian, it would be the moral equivalent,
to you, of my purposely shooting you between the eyes with my Kimber
.45.

That makes sense to you, Toad?



Have yourself tested for dementia. Seriously. What difference does it
make to a victim if he/she is an innocent bystander and is killed by the
actions of terrorists or spreaders of democracy? In both instances, the
victim is dead as a result of the stupidity of men.

The question had to do with moral equivalency, a subject you brought
up.

I can understand your desire to deflect, however. Those corners aren't
nice, are they Toad?


D'oh. I was hoping you'd figure it out...but...no.
There is no morality in either act...

Again, an answer from a corner position.

The accidental running over of the pedestrain had no morality
associated therewith - it was an accident, pure and simple.

My shooting you between the eyes, on the other hand, was an *immoral*
act, although most of society would disagree.

If you believe there is 'no morality' associated with either act, then
you should not be using the term 'higher moral ground'. Using your
logic, there would be no such thing.

Most toads will pee when picked up, but I'm wondering if they pee when
backed into a corner. Did you wet your pants, Toad?
--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/11/14 9:07 AM, Toad Gig wrote:

Again, an answer from a corner position.

The accidental running over of the pedestrain had no morality
associated therewith - it was an accident, pure and simple.

My shooting you between the eyes, on the other hand, was an *immoral*
act, although most of society would disagree.

If you believe there is 'no morality' associated with either act, then
you should not be using the term 'higher moral ground'. Using your
logic, there would be no such thing.

Most toads will pee when picked up, but I'm wondering if they pee when
backed into a corner. Did you wet your pants, Toad?



Johnny, Johnny, Johnny...

1. You've got to do something about the evil bile that rises up in your
throat every morning. Perhaps you can add sex to your list of hobbies,
if you can find a woman who will accommodate you. If not, try one of
your right-wing buddies here for a reach-around or better.

2. You are not clever and your attempts here to appear so have the
opposite effect.

3. You're not in the army anymore and therefore are in no position to
demand responses that suit you, or even whether you get a response.

4. You obviously did not understand my comment about losing the high
moral ground by the ways we sometimes wage war.

As always, have another in your never-ending series of Johnny in a Daze.


--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:30:09 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/11/14 9:07 AM, Toad Gig wrote:

Again, an answer from a corner position.

The accidental running over of the pedestrain had no morality
associated therewith - it was an accident, pure and simple.

My shooting you between the eyes, on the other hand, was an *immoral*
act, although most of society would disagree.

If you believe there is 'no morality' associated with either act, then
you should not be using the term 'higher moral ground'. Using your
logic, there would be no such thing.

Most toads will pee when picked up, but I'm wondering if they pee when
backed into a corner. Did you wet your pants, Toad?



Johnny, Johnny, Johnny...

1. You've got to do something about the evil bile that rises up in your
throat every morning. Perhaps you can add sex to your list of hobbies,
if you can find a woman who will accommodate you. If not, try one of
your right-wing buddies here for a reach-around or better.

2. You are not clever and your attempts here to appear so have the
opposite effect.

3. You're not in the army anymore and therefore are in no position to
demand responses that suit you, or even whether you get a response.

4. You obviously did not understand my comment about losing the high
moral ground by the ways we sometimes wage war.

As always, have another in your never-ending series of Johnny in a Daze.

Hee, hee!
--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/11/14 9:32 AM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:30:09 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/11/14 9:07 AM, Toad Gig wrote:

Again, an answer from a corner position.

The accidental running over of the pedestrain had no morality
associated therewith - it was an accident, pure and simple.

My shooting you between the eyes, on the other hand, was an *immoral*
act, although most of society would disagree.

If you believe there is 'no morality' associated with either act, then
you should not be using the term 'higher moral ground'. Using your
logic, there would be no such thing.

Most toads will pee when picked up, but I'm wondering if they pee when
backed into a corner. Did you wet your pants, Toad?



Johnny, Johnny, Johnny...

1. You've got to do something about the evil bile that rises up in your
throat every morning. Perhaps you can add sex to your list of hobbies,
if you can find a woman who will accommodate you. If not, try one of
your right-wing buddies here for a reach-around or better.

2. You are not clever and your attempts here to appear so have the
opposite effect.

3. You're not in the army anymore and therefore are in no position to
demand responses that suit you, or even whether you get a response.

4. You obviously did not understand my comment about losing the high
moral ground by the ways we sometimes wage war.

As always, have another in your never-ending series of Johnny in a Daze.

Hee, hee!



Cackling as you do is one of the signs of oncoming dementia, Johnny in a
Daze.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/11/14 12:26 AM, KC wrote:
On 12/10/2014 10:50 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:

Say what?
You got evicted so you burned down your house?
Talk about criminally insane......

Shut up retard, you cant even read properly. How DID you ever get to
be even a Janitor?


We don't expect don to keep up...


Don had long-term employment, enjoys a couple of pensions, has an almost
new car and an almost new boat and you...you have nothing but an
increasingly bleak future.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/11/2014 9:30 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/11/14 9:07 AM, Toad Gig wrote:

Again, an answer from a corner position.

The accidental running over of the pedestrain had no morality
associated therewith - it was an accident, pure and simple.

My shooting you between the eyes, on the other hand, was an *immoral*
act, although most of society would disagree.

If you believe there is 'no morality' associated with either act, then
you should not be using the term 'higher moral ground'. Using your
logic, there would be no such thing.

Most toads will pee when picked up, but I'm wondering if they pee when
backed into a corner. Did you wet your pants, Toad?



Johnny, Johnny, Johnny...

1. You've got to do something about the evil bile that rises up in your
throat every morning. Perhaps you can add sex to your list of hobbies,
if you can find a woman who will accommodate you. If not, try one of
your right-wing buddies here for a reach-around or better.

2. You are not clever and your attempts here to appear so have the
opposite effect.

3. You're not in the army anymore and therefore are in no position to
demand responses that suit you, or even whether you get a response.

4. You obviously did not understand my comment about losing the high
moral ground by the ways we sometimes wage war.

As always, have another in your never-ending series of Johnny in a Daze.



I have a two part question for you. If you answer it honestly, I will
refrain from torturing you for one whole week. This is a limited time offer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:37:11 -0500, Let it snowe
wrote:

On 12/11/2014 9:30 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/11/14 9:07 AM, Toad Gig wrote:

Again, an answer from a corner position.

The accidental running over of the pedestrain had no morality
associated therewith - it was an accident, pure and simple.

My shooting you between the eyes, on the other hand, was an *immoral*
act, although most of society would disagree.

If you believe there is 'no morality' associated with either act, then
you should not be using the term 'higher moral ground'. Using your
logic, there would be no such thing.

Most toads will pee when picked up, but I'm wondering if they pee when
backed into a corner. Did you wet your pants, Toad?



Johnny, Johnny, Johnny...

1. You've got to do something about the evil bile that rises up in your
throat every morning. Perhaps you can add sex to your list of hobbies,
if you can find a woman who will accommodate you. If not, try one of
your right-wing buddies here for a reach-around or better.

2. You are not clever and your attempts here to appear so have the
opposite effect.

3. You're not in the army anymore and therefore are in no position to
demand responses that suit you, or even whether you get a response.

4. You obviously did not understand my comment about losing the high
moral ground by the ways we sometimes wage war.

As always, have another in your never-ending series of Johnny in a Daze.



I have a two part question for you. If you answer it honestly, I will
refrain from torturing you for one whole week. This is a limited time offer.

If you are expecting a direct answer, save your breath, er, fingers.
He's learned his lesson.
--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/11/14 10:41 AM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:37:11 -0500, Let it snowe
wrote:

On 12/11/2014 9:30 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/11/14 9:07 AM, Toad Gig wrote:

Again, an answer from a corner position.

The accidental running over of the pedestrain had no morality
associated therewith - it was an accident, pure and simple.

My shooting you between the eyes, on the other hand, was an *immoral*
act, although most of society would disagree.

If you believe there is 'no morality' associated with either act, then
you should not be using the term 'higher moral ground'. Using your
logic, there would be no such thing.

Most toads will pee when picked up, but I'm wondering if they pee when
backed into a corner. Did you wet your pants, Toad?



Johnny, Johnny, Johnny...

1. You've got to do something about the evil bile that rises up in your
throat every morning. Perhaps you can add sex to your list of hobbies,
if you can find a woman who will accommodate you. If not, try one of
your right-wing buddies here for a reach-around or better.

2. You are not clever and your attempts here to appear so have the
opposite effect.

3. You're not in the army anymore and therefore are in no position to
demand responses that suit you, or even whether you get a response.

4. You obviously did not understand my comment about losing the high
moral ground by the ways we sometimes wage war.

As always, have another in your never-ending series of Johnny in a Daze.



I have a two part question for you. If you answer it honestly, I will
refrain from torturing you for one whole week. This is a limited time offer.

If you are expecting a direct answer, save your breath, er, fingers.
He's learned his lesson.


Crikey, you are as delusional as the Two Scotties. And your buddy,
FlaJim, is even more intellectually challenged than you are. Had you two
been in our military during WWII, our national language would have been
changed to Japanese or German. And to think I lost an uncle I never met
in that war so that you two could be spawned.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Thursday, 11 December 2014 10:47:57 UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/11/14 12:26 AM, KC wrote:
On 12/10/2014 10:50 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:

Say what?
You got evicted so you burned down your house?
Talk about criminally insane......

Shut up retard, you cant even read properly. How DID you ever get to
be even a Janitor?


We don't expect don to keep up...


Don had long-term employment, enjoys a couple of pensions, has an almost
new car and an almost new boat and you...you have nothing but an
increasingly bleak future.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

L'il Snot is counting on the good citizens of Connecticut to support his lazy ass in the near future.

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/11/14 11:35 AM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 11 December 2014 10:47:57 UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/11/14 12:26 AM, KC wrote:
On 12/10/2014 10:50 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:

Say what?
You got evicted so you burned down your house?
Talk about criminally insane......

Shut up retard, you cant even read properly. How DID you ever get to
be even a Janitor?


We don't expect don to keep up...


Don had long-term employment, enjoys a couple of pensions, has an almost
new car and an almost new boat and you...you have nothing but an
increasingly bleak future.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

L'il Snot is counting on the good citizens of Connecticut to support his lazy ass in the near future.


They already are.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/11/14 12:35 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:52:39 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

And once again, you miss the point. The point is, we tend to claim the
high moral ground in this country for our military actions, and since we
sometimes behave as badly as our enemies, it's just another "my country
right or wrong" hypocrisy.


That moral high ground is mostly a myth anyway.
Which war was "moral"?
If you don't think the OSS or the FBI used coercive interrogation
methods you have been watching too many movies.


Indeed. Though I do think we were on the side of morality in WW II.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:42:09 AM UTC-5, Let it snowe wrote:

Shut up retard, you cant even read properly. How DID you ever get to be even a Janitor?


We know how you got to be unemployed.

Whatever that refers to, asswipe.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Thursday, December 11, 2014 8:09:35 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:
Let it snowe
On 12/10/2014 10:50 PM, wrote:
- hide quoted text -
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:

Say what?
You got evicted so you burned down your house?
Talk about criminally insane......

Shut up retard, you cant even read properly. How DID you ever get to be even a Janitor?


"We know how you got to be unemployed."


Inquiring minds would like to know.
I'm sure he's convinced Giselle he can't work because of the pig valve in his worthless heart but I'm convinced he got himself into some kind of trouble
Maybe he can't drive a truck over the international border because of legal problems.

Sorry, dicklicker, they only put Pig Valves in old wrinkled , bow-legged assholes like you.
And once you've had OHS, they take your truck license from you. But you knew that, and are desperately grasping for anything to try to intimidate. Go back to watching your gay biker movies while your Wife is out working while you sit on your lazy ass at home acting like a dicklicker on here.

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/11/2014 11:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/11/14 11:35 AM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 11 December 2014 10:47:57 UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/11/14 12:26 AM, KC wrote:
On 12/10/2014 10:50 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, True North wrote:

Say what?
You got evicted so you burned down your house?
Talk about criminally insane......

Shut up retard, you cant even read properly. How DID you ever get to
be even a Janitor?


We don't expect don to keep up...


Don had long-term employment, enjoys a couple of pensions, has an almost
new car and an almost new boat and you...you have nothing but an
increasingly bleak future.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

L'il Snot is counting on the good citizens of Connecticut to support
his lazy ass in the near future.


They already are.

There but for the grace of Karen go you.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:55:11 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/11/14 12:35 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:52:39 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

And once again, you miss the point. The point is, we tend to claim the
high moral ground in this country for our military actions, and since we
sometimes behave as badly as our enemies, it's just another "my country
right or wrong" hypocrisy.


That moral high ground is mostly a myth anyway.
Which war was "moral"?
If you don't think the OSS or the FBI used coercive interrogation
methods you have been watching too many movies.


Indeed. Though I do think we were on the side of morality in WW II.

Not according to the dead.

:)
--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)

Torturing SOB's
 

On Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:47:57 AM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:

Don had long-term employment, enjoys a couple of pensions, has an almost
new car and an almost new boat and you...you have nothing but an
increasingly bleak future.


Now, he makes his Wife work while he sits at home, jerking off to everything you type on here.
I sold TWO houses, banked the money, and now earn over 2000 a month just singing to the less fortunate in Nursing Homes,the Vet Hospital and Retirement Communities. It's quite a comfortable future, asswipe.I actually do something for society, unlike you, a crusty, fat greasy narcissist that hates everyone and has NO redeeming qualities.
I thought you never saw, OR replied to anything I post here.....another lie I see.

Torturing SOB's
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:35:36 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:52:39 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

And once again, you miss the point. The point is, we tend to claim the
high moral ground in this country for our military actions, and since we
sometimes behave as badly as our enemies, it's just another "my country
right or wrong" hypocrisy.


That moral high ground is mostly a myth anyway.
Which war was "moral"?
If you don't think the OSS or the FBI used coercive interrogation
methods you have been watching too many movies.

'Moral high ground' is a term used by liberals who disagree that a
threat may exist or should be defeated.

--

"The modern definition of 'ingrained racist' is someone who's winning an argument
with a couple liberals."

(Thanks, Luddite!)

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/11/14 1:24 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:35:36 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:52:39 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

And once again, you miss the point. The point is, we tend to claim the
high moral ground in this country for our military actions, and since we
sometimes behave as badly as our enemies, it's just another "my country
right or wrong" hypocrisy.


That moral high ground is mostly a myth anyway.
Which war was "moral"?
If you don't think the OSS or the FBI used coercive interrogation
methods you have been watching too many movies.

'Moral high ground' is a term used by liberals who disagree that a
threat may exist or should be defeated.


Wrong as usual. Moral high ground is a synonym right-wing dip****s like
you use to justify your feelings of 'my country, right or wrong." It's
the simplethink that people like you use to justify the slaughter of a
million plus SE Asians and 100,000+ Iraqis and Afghanis in pursuit of a
right-wing war against the wrong countries.

--
I feel no need to explain my politics to stupid right-wingers.
After all, I am *not* the Jackass Whisperer.

Torturing SOB's
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/11/14 1:24 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:35:36 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:52:39 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

And once again, you miss the point. The point is, we tend to claim the
high moral ground in this country for our military actions, and since we
sometimes behave as badly as our enemies, it's just another "my country
right or wrong" hypocrisy.


That moral high ground is mostly a myth anyway.
Which war was "moral"?
If you don't think the OSS or the FBI used coercive interrogation
methods you have been watching too many movies.

'Moral high ground' is a term used by liberals who disagree that a
threat may exist or should be defeated.


Wrong as usual. Moral high ground is a synonym right-wing dip****s like
you use to justify your feelings of 'my country, right or wrong." It's
the simplethink that people like you use to justify the slaughter of a
million plus SE Asians and 100,000+ Iraqis and Afghanis in pursuit of a
right-wing war against the wrong countries.


I thought it was a left wing war. LBJ was a Democrat.

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/11/2014 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/11/14 1:24 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:35:36 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:52:39 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

And once again, you miss the point. The point is, we tend to claim the
high moral ground in this country for our military actions, and since we
sometimes behave as badly as our enemies, it's just another "my country
right or wrong" hypocrisy.


That moral high ground is mostly a myth anyway.
Which war was "moral"?
If you don't think the OSS or the FBI used coercive interrogation
methods you have been watching too many movies.

'Moral high ground' is a term used by liberals who disagree that a
threat may exist or should be defeated.


Wrong as usual. Moral high ground is a synonym right-wing dip****s like
you use to justify your feelings of 'my country, right or wrong." It's
the simplethink that people like you use to justify the slaughter of a
million plus SE Asians and 100,000+ Iraqis and Afghanis in pursuit of a
right-wing war against the wrong countries.


I thought it was a left wing war. LBJ was a Democrat.


....and with no mention of the drone attacks... Why even bother with
harrys blather? just sayin'.

Torturing SOB's
 

On 12/11/2014 12:42 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:04:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


We had broken the Japanese codes and knew it was coming. Probably
didn't know the exact date and time, but we knew it was Pearl Harbor.


There were people in DC who knew the exact time. They based it on the
messages to the Japanese embassy of when they were supposed to deliver
the declaration of war to the US government.
We stalled the Japanese ambassador long enough to make it a "surprise
attack".
The delegation was sitting in Cordell Hull's waiting room cooling
their heels until DC got the news from Hawaii.


Wow, I am really glad my dad isn't around to hear this... All of his
brothers were involved as well as he, one of them was a plumber in New
Mexico with the Manhattan Project...

Torturing SOB's
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:37:56 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/11/14 1:24 PM, Toad Gig wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:35:36 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:52:39 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

And once again, you miss the point. The point is, we tend to claim the
high moral ground in this country for our military actions, and since we
sometimes behave as badly as our enemies, it's just another "my country
right or wrong" hypocrisy.


That moral high ground is mostly a myth anyway.
Which war was "moral"?
If you don't think the OSS or the FBI used coercive interrogation
methods you have been watching too many movies.

'Moral high ground' is a term used by liberals who disagree that a
threat may exist or should be defeated.


Wrong as usual. Moral high ground is a synonym right-wing dip****s like
you use to justify your feelings of 'my country, right or wrong." It's
the simplethink that people like you use to justify the slaughter of a
million plus SE Asians and 100,000+ Iraqis and Afghanis in pursuit of a
right-wing war against the wrong countries.


I thought it was a left wing war. LBJ was a Democrat.


===

As was Kennedy of course. Classic case of selective forgetfulness on
Harry's part, not to mention some revisionist history.