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.