Gas Bandit's Political Thread III

[Armadillo]

True enough, but let's be honest: the left would be saying the same things the right is saying about Obama. Both sides are full of power-hungry hypocrites.

 

[Dieb]

The biggest question is how.

You think Citigroup is going to just say yes to the breakup?

I imagine it's just a matter of passing the right law. Then they'll be forced to break up. Will there be enough politicians who want to do so and are willing to take the heat from such intervention, though? That may be the deciding factor.

It's yet again a strong case for smart regulation in the first place, since regulation is aimed at the industry as a whole instead of a specific target. 'Course, that means the politicians have to stand up to every player in the industry, which probably feels even more daunting.

That's the hard part. Not to mention that Republicans will think of it as a Democrat conspiracy plan to nationalise the banks. And that Democrats will think of it as a Republican conspiracy plan to please their other corporate overlords.

There will be SOME sort of new regulation passed. It's inevitable at this point. Whether that regulation includes some sort of limit on how huge banks can get, who knows. But I certainly hope it will, and there is a good amount of chatter that I've heard in favor of it.

Anyway, I was wrong earlier. As it turns out, America HAS denied medical treatment to prisoners. Or, at the very least, one prisoner John Walker Lindh, who apparently had a bullet in his thigh for weeks after his capture. And he was an American citizen. If we did it to him, we did it others, probably many others. So that's two things on your list of "real" torture, Gas, that America did. But in the words of Peggy Noonan, keep on walking. Some things have to be mysterious. *face palm*

 

[GasBandit]

That sounds more like "how many American deaths are due to sensationalist media with a leftist axe to grind, preferably against the skull of the hated emperor Bush, no blood for oil, whaargarbl."

....WHAT!??!?! Are you saying that it was "sensationalist leftist media" that's responsible for insurgents killing American troops, because they exposed the abuses that were carried out by the Bush administration? Are you serious? Am I reading that right? It's not the fact we horribly abused prisoners, it's the fact someone published it? I mean, ignore the fucking fact that people in the middle east don't get their news from American sources - are you really going down the path of blaming the expose rather than the crime?

In any case, David Kilcullen said, in his book, directly, that what we did at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo has killed American troops. By, as I said, recruiting many of the insurgents that we are fighting. If David Kilcullen is willing to publish this assertion, you can be sure that it is what David Petraeus thinks. Who am I going to believe here, David Petraeus or some guy whose only response is to gurgle like a Murloc. Hmm, I wonder.

Where middle easterners get their "news" is another issue which also probably help prompts them to join up. Let's also not forget that at any given moment the muslim world is waiting for its next excuse for outrage, be it false stories of korans in toilets or danish political cartoons. It dovetails into the next part -

[quote:2dat1al7]Is it? They were howling bloody murder when bethonged women were touching Abu Ghraib detainees. Other such playful activities such as barking dogs, putting women's clothes on the detainee, showing the detainee homosexual pornography, and pretending to baptize the detainee were all instances of "abuse." Pretty much anything we do short of giving them a fruit basket and sending them home gets us bitched out, it's all bullshit.

Completely ignore what I said about the FBI. They've been interrogating prisoners, including middle eastern terroists, for decades, and no one accuses them of torture. How can we have an argument if you don't listen to what I said? In any case, what happened at Abu Ghraib was abuse, even according to the defenders of torture, because those prisoners had no information. They were put into naked pyramids, threatned with dogs, etc etc for absolutly no reason outside of sadism. Are you really trying to defend Abu Ghraib? Even Charles Krauthammer won't go that far.[/quote:2dat1al7]Consider for a moment, a hypothetical. What if they DID have information? Are you saying that naked pyramids, dogs and women in their underwear would have been acceptable? (Yes, JCM, I know you are.) I don't think you are, Dieb, which brings us back to the central issue here. What is and is not acceptable, and why? The waterboarding scandal has so far eclipsed the abu ghraib scandal that the punditry is practically screaming "Why did you do this thing instead of doing these other things which before we were outraged about but now seem to think is better?" Is the extent of our ability to question a hostile non-uniformed enemy combatant in breach of any and all accepted rules of warfare basically to shout "Talk, you!" and then give up when he says no?

[quote:2dat1al7]I was unaware Al Qaeda had signed those treaties or recognized the decisions of those courts as binding.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. Torture is not about THEM; it is about US. Some lines you don't cross, no matter how evil the other side is. Because we don't want to sink to their level. The UN Convention Against Torture (signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, that well known leftist) explictly applies universally, doesn't matter if the other side of the conflict has signed it or not. Torture is also specifically against US law in all cases. It's also, in a different law, specifically a war crim under US law (as we've talked about before). I mean, Jesus, with the silly argument of "Al Qaeda hasn't signed those treaties!" why shouldn't we go on and do whatever you define as "real" torture, the amputation, pulling fingernails, whatever?[/quote:2dat1al7]Because I'm not one of the people saying that either everything is fine or nothing is fine. My personal definition of what is acceptable has to do with lasting, permanent physiological consequences. The Durbanites seem to define any sort of discomfort to be unacceptable. I affirm that there are unacceptable methods, but that there are also acceptable methods. My argument about the geneva conventions was just to show that our treatment of them will have little to no effect on how they treat our prisoners, thus invalidating the "making it worse for our prisoners" argument.

[quote:2dat1al7]blah blah blah Obama needs a teleprompter

Right, he was just lucky this one press conference. Tell you what, find me a public appearance, a press conference, a town hall meeting, a debate (not just a blooper reel) where he doesn't communicate effectively. I know I could find half a dozen where he DID do well without any effort whatsoever. [/quote:2dat1al7]Isn't that kinda what the reels did?

[quote:2dat1al7]Surely you don't mean that saber-rattle of a fake nuke test that didn't even break 1 kiloton?

As opposoed to the saber-rattle of a rocket launch that failed completely? The point is that North Korea likes to rattle its saber rather ineffectivly every once in awhile - it has nothing to do with who is in the White House, and it CERTAINLY isn't because they think Obama is weak.[/quote:2dat1al7]They would be in good company if they do. Everyone else from the EU to Iran is vociferously of that opinion.

[quote:2dat1al7]Are they going to get "their" money back? Even if they do, quite a few shareholders and creditors will not... and it would kind of amount to robbing peter to pay paul. It still begs the question, why did we need a multibillion dollar bailout and an immense expansion of government power to decide to do what would have happened naturally without them? It's a little more like Argentina than Venezuela, though.

Who is the "they" in that sentance? I guess you might have been talking about my use of the word "they" in my response - there, I meant Chrysler, or more specifically the CEO and other decision makers at Chrysler. If so, they didn't loan Chrysler any money, so it doesn't really matter. Shareholders will get almost completely wiped out - that's what happens in a bankrupcy. Creditors will get some of their money back but not all - that's what happens in a bankrupcy. We needed the bailout to buy time to let a merger with Fiat take place - if Chyrsler hadn't gotten that bailout it probably would have resulted in a Chapter 7, ie liquidation, bankrupcy.[/quote:2dat1al7] By "they" I was referring to the federal government, because that's who I thought you were saying were going to get their money back. What I was saying was, if it's bankruptcy make it a bankruptcy. Why does the government get "its" money back (I keep putting that in quotes because it's ours really, not "theirs"), and why does the UAW get its unsecured obligations honored (and 55% of company ownership, and despite not being allowed to "run" the company you'd have to be daft not to see how a majority common stockholder can still exert influence), when secured obligations and creditors are not? This is a la carte bankruptcy, with money going to political favorites first. Bonus: What do you call it when the "workers" own the means of production? Double Bonus: What do you call it when the means of production are privately owned but run by government?

Anyway, I was wrong earlier. As it turns out, America HAS denied medical treatment to prisoners. Or, at the very least, one prisoner John Walker Lindh, who apparently had a bullet in his thigh for weeks after his capture. And he was an American citizen. If we did it to him, we did it others, probably many others. So that's two things on your list of "real" torture, Gas, that America did. But in the words of Peggy Noonan, keep on walking. Some things have to be mysterious. *face palm*

If this indeed happened to Lindh, it is a breach of ethics, morality and law and those responsible should be held accountable. But I'm left to wonder if we're getting the whole story here. Why are the only sources, when I google for this subject, this single obscure Esquire article and the assertions of his attorneys during the trial? Why wasn't the highly critical MSNBC all over this? Why did CNN make it sound like the medical attention was promptly provided by american forces once he was captured?

[removed noonan reference, I misunderstood it, Krisken explained it to me in IRC]

 

[GasBandit]

Link Time -

The other night during his press conference, Obama claimed that his economic stimulus bill had "already saved or created 150,000 jobs." Considering the fact that our economy has lost well over a million jobs since Obama took office, one might wonder ... where in the heck did he get 150,000 jobs from? It turns out that the president is basing this number on estimates of what his economic advisers THINK the economic stimulus bill is doing.

Census takers sure are getting personal these days.

Jack Kemp passed away over the weekend.

According to environmentalists, one of the biggest problems with global warming is the term "global warming."

If you want a good laugh read this story: What Finland can teach America about true luxury. Synopsis: Only the poor are truly luxuriant.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a whopping 71% approval rating.

Now that the UAW is the majority shareholder of Chrysler, we will see how it does running a business.

Iran lambasted Obama for his first one hundred days in office and demanded to see his "change."

Obama revelling in U.S. power unseen in decades.

Here's an excellent column expressing why we can't afford to have the government run our businesses in this country.

Arlen Specter admits that he was motivated to switched parties is because he had a very low chance of winning the Republican primary in 2010.

 

[Covar]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a whopping 71% approval rating.

Better numbers than when she was a Senator. Of course then she had to open her mouth in front of American Citizens.

 

[North_Ranger]

If you want a good laugh read this story: What Finland can teach America about true luxury. Synopsis: Only the poor are truly luxuriant.

Nice biased reading there, GB. Allow me to offer a rebuttal: You, sir, may go and fuck yourself.

 

[GasBandit]

If you want a good laugh read this story: What Finland can teach America about true luxury. Synopsis: Only the poor are truly luxuriant.

Nice biased reading there, GB. Allow me to offer a rebuttal: You, sir, may go and fuck yourself.

I knew that'd get you in here

 

[North_Ranger]

Don't you smiley at me, mister. I kept away because I believed we had an agreement. But no, you had to go and make fun of my home country.

And guess what, tikkukikkeli? I don't like it one bit.

 

[GasBandit]

Pobrecito.

 

That article was complimentary of the traditional pace of the European continent. How is this a bad thing? And they are not necessarily "poor", they just hold different things in high amounts of worth.

 

[North_Ranger]

Ed, this is Gas we are talking about. He can take a My Little Pony episode and blame the 80s cartoon writers of being communist sympathisers.

 

[GasBandit]

Smurfs, actually.

 

[Dieb]

Where middle easterners get their "news" is another issue which also probably help prompts them to join up. Let's also not forget that at any given moment the muslim world is waiting for its next excuse for outrage, be it false stories of korans in toilets or danish political cartoons. It dovetails into the next part

Are you saying that muslim world shouldn't be outraged over torture? Please, if a foreign country did this to Americans, you would be outraged. As you should be. And you continue to blame the outing of outrageous policies rather than to blame the policies themselves. That's madness.

Consider for a moment, a hypothetical. What if they DID have information? Are you saying that naked pyramids, dogs and women in their underwear would have been acceptable? (Yes, JCM, I know you are.) I don't think you are, Dieb, which brings us back to the central issue here. What is and is not acceptable, and why? The waterboarding scandal has so far eclipsed the abu ghraib scandal that the punditry is practically screaming "Why did you do this thing instead of doing these other things which before we were outraged about but now seem to think is better?" Is the extent of our ability to question a hostile non-uniformed enemy combatant in breach of any and all accepted rules of warfare basically to shout "Talk, you!" and then give up when he says no?

No, they wouldn't be acceptable, but they wouldn't be torture either. Even if the prisoners did have information, how were naked pyramids supposed to get it out of them? That's why they would still be unacceptable - there was no point to them; they were just sadistic. No, sadistic isn't quite the right word - I'm not arguing they caused a lot of pain, just that the guards were doing lots of crazy shit for fun.

Amazingly, you manage to miss the conservative hypocracy surrounding abu ghraib. At the time, and now, all the people defending torture thought what happened at abu ghraib was incredibly shocking, beyond all decency, and that whomever was responsible needed to be charged with a crime. I think we can agree that the "enhanced interrogation" techniques were much worse than naked pyramids. How, then, was what happened at Abu Ghraib a crime, but what happened at Gitmo wasn't?

Nonetheless, you continue to miss my point. The line of what is and what isn't torture is actually pretty damn clear. You obviously don't know anything about it, and therefore think that people like me want to call everything torture. This is not the case. The techniques used by the FBI are clearly not torture, and quite frankly are arguably more effective than these "enhanced interrogation" techniques (the consensus seems to be it takes a bit longer, but in exhange you don't have to wade through a huge amount of lies and misinformation).

Because I'm not one of the people saying that either everything is fine or nothing is fine. My personal definition of what is acceptable has to do with lasting, permanent physiological consequences. The Durbanites seem to define any sort of discomfort to be unacceptable. I affirm that there are unacceptable methods, but that there are also acceptable methods. My argument about the geneva conventions was just to show that our treatment of them will have little to no effect on how they treat our prisoners, thus invalidating the "making it worse for our prisoners" argument.

Wow, amazing. Your ignorance is showing yet again. Ronald Reagan, for one, would completely disagree with your definition of torture. Would raping a prisoner be torture for you? It often doesn't leave any "permanent physiological" consequences. My god, can't you see that there is a HUGE gap between permanent physiological consequences and "any sort of discomfort". NO ONE IS BLOODY ARGUING ANY SORT OF DISCOMFORT IS TORTURE. You bring this strawman up over and over and over again. I've had it. You don't know anything about this subject, you're just content to wallow in your own ignorance.

Isn't that kinda what the reels did?

No, not even close. A mistake is a mistake - but it isn't a speach. You can easily make one or two slips of the tongue in a speach and still have it be very, very effective. String together many such mistakes made in many speaches, it looks silly, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that the speaches themselves were very good. Duh?

They would be in good company if they do. Everyone else from the EU to Iran is vociferously of that opinion.

Wow, you should work in the state department. You can read the minds of entire countries! Amazing! Especially when there ACTIONS (like the link of Kohmeini attacking Obama - the Ayatollah usually leaves such things to minions - hardly something you do to someone you think of a pushover) say no such thing.

By "they" I was referring to the federal government, because that's who I thought you were saying were going to get their money back. What I was saying was, if it's bankruptcy make it a bankruptcy. Why does the government get "its" money back (I keep putting that in quotes because it's ours really, not "theirs"), and why does the UAW get its unsecured obligations honored (and 55% of company ownership, and despite not being allowed to "run" the company you'd have to be daft not to see how a Ormajority common stockholder can still exert influence), when secured obligations and creditors are not? This is a la carte bankruptcy, with money going to political favorites first. Bonus: What do you call it when the "workers" own the means of production? Double Bonus: What do you call it when the means of production are privately owned but run by government?

Hah, "means of production". Oh Gas. I love how you're trying to imply Obama is communist and facist at the same time. In any case, I'd hardly say failing auto companies and failing banks are the "means of production" in the United States. But in case your wondering, according to your link the common stock that UAW gets will ACTUALLY be going to the VEBAs set up to pay employee health care costs. That is to say, this isn't going to UAW because of unsecured obligations - health care for the auto workers had been in their contracts for decades now. But we've heard what you'd like to do to the auto companies - what's your solution to the banks? Should we let the entire financial system crash?

If this indeed happened to Lindh, it is a breach of ethics, morality and law and those responsible should be held accountable. But I'm left to wonder if we're getting the whole story here. Why are the only sources, when I google for this subject, this single obscure Esquire article and the assertions of his attorneys during the trial? Why wasn't the highly critical MSNBC all over this? Why did CNN make it sound like the medical attention was promptly provided by american forces once he was captured?

The CNN article is a bit misleading. I assume you mean this quote: "When found in Afghanistan by U.S. military forces in November 2001, Walker Lindh was shoeless, covered in dirt and lying in a hospital bed, where he was recovering from wounds received in the prison battle". What it sounds like is that Lindh was given full medical attention there - however he was not. While he did recieve basic first aid, he had taken a bullet in his thigh. This was not operated on for WEEKS. He was interrogated while his wound was, according to a special forces physician who examined him, "seeping and malodorous" with "thick tenacious whitish mucus [sic] present". (Source Yes, this is a defense filing, but it makes reference to a government document obtained by the defense - the original document is not online). He wasn't operated on for more than a week after that assessment was given. Again, this was done to a known American citizen. Amazing.

 

[Lamont]

If you want a good laugh read this story: What Finland can teach America about true luxury. Synopsis: Only the poor are truly luxuriant.

Jesus fucking Christ, GB, that's actually offensive in its moronically biased reading. The vast majority of Americans that I've personally met have been lovely, open-minded people, but I have to say, no one does blinkered monoculturalism quite like Americans.

Enjoy the Dream, dude.

-- Tue May 05, 2009 6:29 am --

Smurfs, actually.

Well, yes, Smurfs were in fact Belgian. The actual name of the characters is "Schtroumpfs". As any fool knows.

 

[North_Ranger]

If you want a good laugh read this story: What Finland can teach America about true luxury. Synopsis: Only the poor are truly luxuriant.

Jesus fucking Christ, GB, that's actually offensive in its moronically biased reading. The vast majority of Americans that I've personally met have been lovely, open-minded people, but I have to say, no one does blinkered monoculturalism quite like Americans.

Enjoy the Dream, dude.

This is why I am fighting not to tell our resident Ewok political pundit to take his SUV and shove it up his furry, dingleberried keister. I'd like to say it, but I think that would be like any time you get into a fight with GB: it's like trying to have a civilized argument with a very thick stonewall. Pointless.

 

[JCM]

If you want a good laugh read this story: What Finland can teach America about true luxury. Synopsis: Only the poor are truly luxuriant.

Jesus fucking Christ, GB, that's actually offensive in its moronically biased reading. The vast majority of Americans that I've personally met have been lovely, open-minded people, but I have to say, no one does blinkered monoculturalism quite like Americans.

Enjoy the Dream, dude.

This is why I am fighting not to tell our resident Ewok political pundit to take his SUV and shove it up his furry, dingleberried keister. I'd like to say it, but I think that would be like any time you get into a fight with GB: it's like trying to have a civilized argument with a very thick stonewall. Pointless.

Relax, nobody takes him seriously when he´s channeling Fox news´ version of the world.

 

[DarkAudit]

If you want a good laugh read this story: What Finland can teach America about true luxury. Synopsis: Only the poor are truly luxuriant.

Jesus smurfing Christ, GB, that's actually offensive in its moronically biased reading. The vast majority of Americans that I've personally met have been lovely, open-minded people, but I have to say, no one does blinkered monoculturalism quite like Americans.

Enjoy the Dream, dude.

This is why I am fighting not to tell our resident Ewok political pundit to take his SUV and shove it up his furry, dingleberried keister. I'd like to say it, but I think that would be like any time you get into a fight with GB: it's like trying to have a civilized argument with a very thick stonewall. Pointless.

DO IT. DOOO EEEET.

You have the power to make it stick, too. Do it.

 

[Lamont]

Also, "luxuriant". I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Mind you, it's always the way. Native French speakers can't write French any better than native English speakers can write English.

People suck.

 

[GasBandit]

DO IT. DOOO EEEET.

You have the power to make it stick, too. Do it.

Oh, I'm shaking. Typical liberal. Dissenting political opinon must be BANNED. Double plus ungood!

Jesus fucking Christ, GB, that's actually offensive in its moronically biased reading. The vast majority of Americans that I've personally met have been lovely, open-minded people, but I have to say, no one does blinkered monoculturalism quite like Americans.

Monoculturalism? As opposed to multiculturalism? Multiculturalism is bunk, and dangerous bunk at that. It creates a divided populace, pocket ghettoes, and antipathy between citizens of different backgrounds. But hey, when it comes to culture, American culture is the one that came to dominate the globe, so you can't blame us for being a little caught up in it.

Smurfs, actually.

Well, yes, Smurfs were in fact Belgian. The actual name of the characters is "Schtroumpfs". As any fool knows.

And they were a parable on the virtues of communism and an allegory on the USSR in particular.

This is why I am fighting not to tell our resident Ewok political pundit to take his SUV and shove it up his furry, dingleberried keister. I'd like to say it, but I think that would be like any time you get into a fight with GB: it's like trying to have a civilized argument with a very thick stonewall. Pointless.

Well, you pretty much just said it, didn't you? You can eat me too, whiny :finger: Don't you have a rustic shack in the hinterlands to retire to for luxury amenity-free 5 week vacation or something? Look, I get it. I pissed you off. I don't care. You wanted to come tell me to go fuck myself. Great. You did it. I laugh at your ire. Are you done here? Thanks.

Where middle easterners get their "news" is another issue which also probably help prompts them to join up. Let's also not forget that at any given moment the muslim world is waiting for its next excuse for outrage, be it false stories of korans in toilets or danish political cartoons. It dovetails into the next part

Are you saying that muslim world shouldn't be outraged over torture? Please, if a foreign country did this to Americans, you would be outraged. As you should be. And you continue to blame the outing of outrageous policies rather than to blame the policies themselves. That's madness.

Foreign countries ARE doing this to Americans, and were before any of this waterboarding scandal even first saw the light of day. This is why I am not convinced that supergluing on the kid gloves makes American prisoners safer. I am saying, however, that the muslim world's supply of unallocated, stockpiled outrage vastly overshadows its fear of rationality and access to journalism that doesn't have an anti-western agenda to push.

[quote:2uofvpjy]Consider for a moment, a hypothetical. What if they DID have information? Are you saying that naked pyramids, dogs and women in their underwear would have been acceptable? (Yes, JCM, I know you are.) I don't think you are, Dieb, which brings us back to the central issue here. What is and is not acceptable, and why? The waterboarding scandal has so far eclipsed the abu ghraib scandal that the punditry is practically screaming "Why did you do this thing instead of doing these other things which before we were outraged about but now seem to think is better?" Is the extent of our ability to question a hostile non-uniformed enemy combatant in breach of any and all accepted rules of warfare basically to shout "Talk, you!" and then give up when he says no?

No, they wouldn't be acceptable, but they wouldn't be torture either. Even if the prisoners did have information, how were naked pyramids supposed to get it out of them? That's why they would still be unacceptable - there was no point to them; they were just sadistic. No, sadistic isn't quite the right word - I'm not arguing they caused a lot of pain, just that the guards were doing lots of crazy shit for fun.[/quote:2uofvpjy]The crux of the issue is what is acceptable. And discomfort and humiliation ARE interrogation techniques, far more humane than some. These FBI techniques that you keep coming back to, what ARE they exactly, hmm? How do they coerce information? There are only two types of coercion. Incentives and Deterrents. Punishments and rewards. Are the FBI giving suspects lollies when they give up the info? I somehow doubt that.

Amazingly, you manage to miss the conservative hypocracy surrounding abu ghraib. At the time, and now, all the people defending torture thought what happened at abu ghraib was incredibly shocking, beyond all decency, and that whomever was responsible needed to be charged with a crime. I think we can agree that the "enhanced interrogation" techniques were much worse than naked pyramids. How, then, was what happened at Abu Ghraib a crime, but what happened at Gitmo wasn't?

Last I heard, only two people were tried and convicted for doing the "crazy shit for fun" at abu ghraib. They weren't authorized to do what they did. As for Gitmo, the jury is not only still out, it hasn't even convened yet.

[quote:2uofvpjy]Because I'm not one of the people saying that either everything is fine or nothing is fine. My personal definition of what is acceptable has to do with lasting, permanent physiological consequences. The Durbanites seem to define any sort of discomfort to be unacceptable. I affirm that there are unacceptable methods, but that there are also acceptable methods. My argument about the geneva conventions was just to show that our treatment of them will have little to no effect on how they treat our prisoners, thus invalidating the "making it worse for our prisoners" argument.

Wow, amazing. Your ignorance is showing yet again. Ronald Reagan, for one, would completely disagree with your definition of torture. Would raping a prisoner be torture for you? It often doesn't leave any "permanent physiological" consequences. My god, can't you see that there is a HUGE gap between permanent physiological consequences and "any sort of discomfort". NO ONE IS BLOODY ARGUING ANY SORT OF DISCOMFORT IS TORTURE. You bring this strawman up over and over and over again. I've had it. You don't know anything about this subject, you're just content to wallow in your own ignorance.[/quote:2uofvpjy]Way to invoke hyperbole. Yes, raping a prisoner would be unacceptable. It frequently DOES leave permanent consequences, in fact, moreso than waterboarding. But I think there's a disconnect between our two arguments. I'm talking about what's allowable or not, you're talking about what's torture or not. As much as you accuse me of not addressing your position, you're doubly so trying to divert the direction of mine.

[quote:2uofvpjy]Isn't that kinda what the reels did?

No, not even close. A mistake is a mistake - but it isn't a speach. You can easily make one or two slips of the tongue in a speach and still have it be very, very effective. String together many such mistakes made in many speaches, it looks silly, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that the speaches themselves were very good. Duh?[/quote:2uofvpjy]Odd then how often enough entire Bush speeches were dismissed or ridiculed for single mistakes or even mispronunciations of single words. My how the standards have changed in the last few months.

[quote:2uofvpjy]They would be in good company if they do. Everyone else from the EU to Iran is vociferously of that opinion.

Wow, you should work in the state department. You can read the minds of entire countries! Amazing! Especially when there ACTIONS (like the link of Kohmeini attacking Obama - the Ayatollah usually leaves such things to minions - hardly something you do to someone you think of a pushover) say no such thing.[/quote:2uofvpjy] I'm not reading minds, I'm reading public statements. Maybe you're right, maybe they secretly don't mean any of what they say to the world? As for Iran's escalation of spokesperson, there's a very popular school of thought when it comes to fighting that when your opponent is weakest is when you must push hardest.

Hah, "means of production". Oh Gas. I love how you're trying to imply Obama is communist and facist at the same time.

Maybe he hasn't made up his mind yet. Maybe he's trying to chase a socialist ideal but needs fascist methods to stomp out the dissent. After all, the left has long held the opinion that because they are the "good guys" any foul, crime, or hypocrisy they perpetrate is validated because they're the ones saving the world and the ends justify the means. Funny how that sounds so similar to how they portray their opposition.

In any case, I'd hardly say failing auto companies and failing banks are the "means of production" in the United States.

Call it the socialist "installment plan" then. Switching over, one industry at a time.

But in case your wondering, according to your link the common stock that UAW gets will ACTUALLY be going to the VEBAs set up to pay employee health care costs. That is to say, this isn't going to UAW because of unsecured obligations - health care for the auto workers had been in their contracts for decades now.

That doesn't make them secured. In a bankruptcy, contractual obligations do get nullified. But then in the deciding of who gets paid and who doesn't, there is an established order of things. Secured debt gets paid before unsecured. Obama has turned that on its ear, making sure that his union friends get first crack at the money. This will not make lenders feel good. It will undermine the entire concept of a "secured" loan.

But we've heard what you'd like to do to the auto companies - what's your solution to the banks? Should we let the entire financial system crash?

There are some other ideas floating around out there, but really we haven't even been allowed to look into what other options we have because "we have to do something and do it now because something is better than nothing" and you can never let a crisis go to waste, when it can serve as a great excuse to pass an omnibus full of leftist dream projects and grab control over two major industries, all while growing government size, power and debt to stupefying proportions.

If this indeed happened to Lindh, it is a breach of ethics, morality and law and those responsible should be held accountable. But I'm left to wonder if we're getting the whole story here. Why are the only sources, when I google for this subject, this single obscure Esquire article and the assertions of his attorneys during the trial? Why wasn't the highly critical MSNBC all over this? Why did CNN make it sound like the medical attention was promptly provided by american forces once he was captured?

The CNN article is a bit misleading. I assume you mean this quote: "When found in Afghanistan by U.S. military forces in November 2001, Walker Lindh was shoeless, covered in dirt and lying in a hospital bed, where he was recovering from wounds received in the prison battle". What it sounds like is that Lindh was given full medical attention there - however he was not. While he did recieve basic first aid, he had taken a bullet in his thigh. This was not operated on for WEEKS. He was interrogated while his wound was, according to a special forces physician who examined him, "seeping and malodorous" with "thick tenacious whitish mucus [sic] present". (Source Yes, this is a defense filing, but it makes reference to a government document obtained by the defense - the original document is not online). He wasn't operated on for more than a week after that assessment was given. Again, this was done to a known American citizen. Amazing.

Yes, that's what you said... and what I said was, why is the only place you can read about this alleged atrocity an assertion made by his defense lawyer, and an obscure article in a magazine hardly anybody ever reads that is probably pretty desperate to make a splash and draw in readership asap? Why is there no mention of this in any major media news source, most of which was hostile to the administration? Why IS the CNN article "misleading" when it could have been damning, particularly when they aspire so often to be so? It smells funny. But I reiterate, if he WAS in fact denied medical treatment for his gunshot wound, then yes, that is beyond the pale and something should have been (and still should be, apparently) done about it.

 

[Lamont]

Monoculturalism? As opposed to multiculturalism?

God, you're a bot. :tear:

Actually, as opposed to believing that there is only One True Way. You are an amusing example of the kind of person who only grudgingly believes that there are other ways of doing things outside of the US, and who believes with religious fervour that whatever those ways are, they are de facto wrong on the grounds of not being American.

This thread is full of you telling people, with admirable aplomb, that they are wrong to think that they are living a happy and fulfilling life. Canadians raise their hands and say that, on the whole and speaking as reasonable adults who don't believe in fairy tales, they are happy with their public health care system, and there you are, providing links proving that they are, in fact, delirious. Telling people that they are wrong about their own life is extraordinarily important to you.

You are a very strange person.

Multiculturalism is bunk, and dangerous bunk at that. It creates a divided populace, pocket ghettoes, and antipathy between citizens of different backgrounds.

I'll remember that when I scurry through the civil-war torn streets of Montréal.

But hey, when it comes to culture, American culture is the one that came to dominate the globe, so you can't blame us for being a little caught up in it.

Do you truly believe American culture (much of which I quite like) will dominate the globe forever?

 

[GasBandit]

Link time -

Thomas Lauria, a lawyer for top Chrysler creditors, has officially filed a motion to stop the Chrysler bankruptcy. Lauria claims that the Obama administration has violated the Constitution by trying to devalue the senior creditors' holdings on behalf of junior creditors. He has also asked that the bankruptcy court keep the names of his client confidential because they have been receiving threats. Allegedly, the white house has threatened to sic the press corps on them. The whole thing reads like a bad gangster movie.

Even more lobbyists in the no-lobbyist administration.

More than 40% of people on this planet live under a regime that does not allow freedom of the press.

Just what does a criminal illegal alien have to do to get deported in this country?

It's time for that "equal treatment under the law" stuff to apply under the Voting Rights Act.

ACORN is back in the news ... Nevada authorities are accusing ACORN and two former employees of illegally paying people to register voters. No problem though .. ACORN will still have a big role in the upcoming census.

Here's an interesting look behind the scenes of the people in Washington who are having a large impact on healthcare reform.

Jesse Jackson says that the NAACP must help to save the auto industry. Hey, maybe it can do a better job than the government. After all, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says that there may be nothing the government can do to save the newspaper industry.

In the healthcare debate, government insurance is still on the table ... but not a sure bet.

Maybe lots of smaller banks wouldn't have helped after all.

The top ten reasons why Obamanomics won't work.

Talk radio only has five years left?

 

[North_Ranger]

Monoculturalism? As opposed to multiculturalism?

God, you're a bot. :tear:

Actually, as opposed to believing that there is only One True Way. You are an amusing example of the kind of person who only grudgingly believes that there are other ways of doing things outside of the US, and who believes with religious fervour that whatever those ways are, they are de facto wrong on the grounds of not being American.

This thread is full of you telling people, with admirable aplomb, that they are wrong to think that they are living a happy and fulfilling life. Canadians raise their hands and say that, on the whole and speaking as reasonable adults who don't believe in fairy tales, they are happy with their public health care system, and there you are, providing links proving that they are, in fact, delirious. Telling people that they are wrong about their own life is extraordinarily important to you.

You are a very strange person.

Multiculturalism is bunk, and dangerous bunk at that. It creates a divided populace, pocket ghettoes, and antipathy between citizens of different backgrounds.

I'll remember that when I scurry through the civil-war torn streets of Montréal.

But hey, when it comes to culture, American culture is the one that came to dominate the globe, so you can't blame us for being a little caught up in it.

Do you truly believe American culture (much of which I quite like) will dominate the globe forever?

Well said, Lamont. Well said.

It's actually quite contradictory to hear GB speak from time to time. On the one hand he speaks for the glories of American culture, while on the other hand he would like nothing better than the US to fall apart without the eeeeebil federal government forcing socialism down the throat of good, God-fearing Americans, ooooooh!

And the thing about Finns and their summer cabins: correct me if I'm wrong, any Americans present here, but isn't one branch of the American tourist industry that of "roughing it"? You know, getting away from the amenities, living like the settlers or something like that?

 

[Mr_Chaz]

Do you truly believe American culture (much of which I quite like) will dominate the globe forever?

Considering Gas has told us before that he thinks America will, in the not too distant future, dissolve into a number of different states, I don't think he can think that. Not unless he's a massive hypocrite.

 

[North_Ranger]

Do you truly believe American culture (much of which I quite like) will dominate the globe forever?

Considering Gas has told us before that he thinks America will, in the not too distant future, dissolve into a number of different states, I don't think he can think that. Not unless he's a massive hypocrite.

BINGO!

 

[GasBandit]

I'll remember that when I scurry through the civil-war torn streets of Montréal.

Every canadian I've spoken with using actual vocal cords has said that Montreal is a crazy shit hole full of mentally ill francophiles. /shrug.

Do you truly believe American culture (much of which I quite like) will dominate the globe forever?

Well, humanity does have to die out at some point. And perhaps it may not be "american" culture one day, but it will be the irrevocably americanized version of your culture that sticks around.

Well said, Lamont. Well said.

It's actually quite contradictory to hear GB speak from time to time. On the one hand he speaks for the glories of American culture, while on the other hand he would like nothing better than the US to fall apart without the eeeeebil federal government forcing socialism down the throat of good, God-fearing Americans, ooooooh!

I never said I would "like nothing better." I said I see a great economic collapse with possible balkanization coming within our lifetime.

And the thing about Finns and their summer cabins: correct me if I'm wrong, any Americans present here, but isn't one branch of the American tourist industry that of "roughing it"? You know, getting away from the amenities, living like the settlers or something like that?

If you're talking about camping, pfft... yeah... for a WEEKEND maybe. If you mean actual thematic getaways, that's strictly a niche and/or day trip thing. Not five weeks of whittling and looking at each other.

Do you truly believe American culture (much of which I quite like) will dominate the globe forever?

Considering Gas has told us before that he thinks America will, in the not too distant future, dissolve into a number of different states, I don't think he can think that. Not unless he's a massive hypocrite.

There will still be "american culture" after there ceases to be a United States of America. Much like there is "european culture" or "asian culture" without those areas actually having ever been unified. And I did not say that every piece after the fracturing would also live in perpetual poverty.

But you have to admit, the dominant cultural influence on the world currently and for the forseeable future, for good or ill (Sorry about Reality TV, you guys. Really.), is american culture. Or perhaps, more specifically, hollywood.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

But you have to admit, the dominant cultural influence on the world currently and for the forseeable future, for good or ill (Sorry about Reality TV, you guys. Really.), is american culture. Or perhaps, more specifically, hollywood.

I agree unfortunately. Mostly. I think it will cease to be dominant earlier than you expect, but it's only my opinion. But yeah, you are basically right.

Oh, and apology not accepted. A simple apology isn't enough to rid us of some of that tripe.

 

[North_Ranger]

"Five weeks of whittling and looking at each other"... Pfft. That's your basic strategy all the time, GB. You take something you do not agree with it and exaggerate into ridiculous dimensions that suit your own motives.

The French don't support the Iraq War? They are surrender monkeys who wouldn't know a rifle from a baguette!
The Dutch eat a lot of fish? They stuff sardines in their porridge and drink marlin juice!
The Spanish watch bullfights? The newborn Spaniards are given live chickens and they are expected to kill them with their pudgy arms before they will be fed!

You are so full of shit, mister.

And whether you're interested or not, there's plenty to do on summer cabins: fishing, swimming, going to sauna, plain ol' relaxing, barbecues... Many people also invite friends and relatives over who do not have summer cabins.

That's right: NOT ALL FINNS EVEN HAVE SUMMER CABINS!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!! PANDEMONIUM!!!!

 

[GasBandit]

"Five weeks of whittling and looking at each other"... Pfft. That's your basic strategy all the time, GB. You take something you do not agree with it and exaggerate into ridiculous dimensions that suit your own motives.

The French don't support the Iraq War? They are surrender monkeys who wouldn't know a rifle from a baguette!
The Dutch eat a lot of fish? They stuff sardines in their porridge and drink marlin juice!
The Spanish watch bullfights? The newborn Spaniards are given live chickens and they are expected to kill them with their pudgy arms before they will be fed!

You are so full of shit, mister.

And whether you're interested or not, there's plenty to do on summer cabins: fishing, swimming, going to sauna, plain ol' relaxing, barbecues... Many people also invite friends and relatives over who do not have summer cabins.

That's right: NOT ALL FINNS EVEN HAVE SUMMER CABINS!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!! PANDEMONIUM!!!!

Raucous. Your answer to my image of the impoverished vacation to the hut in the woods is answered by "some people can't even afford the huts."

I don't remember saying anything about Dutch fish eating or Spanish bullfights. I think you're projecting here, husker-doo.

But you have to admit, the dominant cultural influence on the world currently and for the forseeable future, for good or ill (Sorry about Reality TV, you guys. Really.), is american culture. Or perhaps, more specifically, hollywood.

I agree unfortunately. Mostly. I think it will cease to be dominant earlier than you expect, but it's only my opinion. But yeah, you are basically right.

Oh, and apology not accepted. A simple apology isn't enough to rid us of some of that tripe.

Unfortunately, like a great many other things, I was not consulted on this. Otherwise I could have nipped it in the bud. I have a buddy whose wife is absolutely hooked on "Amazing Race." Ugh. How this happens to an otherwise reasonably intelligent human, I'll never fathom. Though, every cloud has its silver lining... and though the vast majority of reality shows blow harder than a wind tunnel, it did give us Deadliest Catch.

 

[Yoink]

So you equalize "don´t have" with "can´t afford" ?

 

[North_Ranger]

So you equalize "don´t have" with "can´t afford" ?

This is GB we're talking about here. He is the supreme master of biased readings.

"A wise man gets by with less", a Finnish proverb that fits here. If you don't want or need a cabin, fine. My parents, for instance, live a stone's throw away from a lake, so they have no need for a cabin.

 

[GasBandit]

So you equalize "don´t have" with "can´t afford" ?

This is GB we're talking about here. He is the supreme master of biased readings.

"A wise man gets by with less", a Finnish proverb that fits here. If you don't want or need a cabin, fine. My parents, for instance, live a stone's throw away from a lake, so they have no need for a cabin.

That's a great proverb. Too bad it entirely loses its meaning when "getting by with less" was the only choice available.

 

[North_Ranger]

And he misses the point again! The crowd goes wild! WHEEE!!!!

 

[Dieb]

Foreign countries ARE doing this to Americans, and were before any of this waterboarding scandal even first saw the light of day. This is why I am not convinced that supergluing on the kid gloves makes American prisoners safer. I am saying, however, that the muslim world's supply of unallocated, stockpiled outrage vastly overshadows its fear of rationality and access to journalism that doesn't have an anti-western agenda to push.

Wait, what foreign countries are doing this to Americans right now? Sure, what we did in Gitmo was pretty much exactly what North Korea and Vietnam did to our troops during those wars (remember, we took these techniques from SERE school, which were designed with an eye to what had happened in Korea) but lately? I guess Iran and China use these methods, but they're using them against their own populations, not Americans. The few prisoners Al Queada has taken probably got a taste of these methods, true, is that what you're talking about? I do agree that the muslim's world's supply of outrage is crazy, but in this particular case they have a pretty damn good reason. And that perfectly justified outrage is killing American troops as we speak.

The crux of the issue is what is acceptable. And discomfort and humiliation ARE interrogation techniques, far more humane than some. These FBI techniques that you keep coming back to, what ARE they exactly, hmm? How do they coerce information? There are only two types of coercion. Incentives and Deterrents. Punishments and rewards. Are the FBI giving suspects lollies when they give up the info? I somehow doubt that.

Exactly, incentives and deterrents. Your deterrents, however, don't have to include sleep deprivation for literally weeks at a time. Nor do they have to include beatings, or slamming people up against walls thirty times in a row. Nor do they have to include being forced in ice cold water so long that hypothermia makes them turn blue. Nor being forced into a box so small you can't turn around for hours. And they certainly don't have to include waterboarding. Can't you see how extreme these methods are? There's so much room between what we did and your "tickling with feathers" imagination you could drive a semi through it.

In any case, if you seriously are interested in the legal methods used by the FBI, I suggest reading this written by a former FBI interrogator in Iraq for a more general outline of methods that work. The Army Field Manual is a more specific source, and from what I know pretty much identical to the FBIs techniques.

Last I heard, only two people were tried and convicted for doing the "crazy poop for fun" at abu ghraib. They weren't authorized to do what they did. As for Gitmo, the jury is not only still out, it hasn't even convened yet.

Both true statements. My point is that pretty much everyone defending torture thought those two who were convicted deserved to have had the book thrown at them, yet argue quite strenuosly that there were no crimes commited at Gitmo. The main difference, it seems to me, is that the two from Abu Ghraib were nobodies. The people responsible for Gitmo most certainly are not.

Way to invoke hyperbole. Yes, raping a prisoner would be unacceptable. It frequently DOES leave permanent consequences, in fact, moreso than waterboarding. But I think there's a disconnect between our two arguments. I'm talking about what's allowable or not, you're talking about what's torture or not. As much as you accuse me of not addressing your position, you're doubly so trying to divert the direction of mine.

I'm arguing about torture because that's what the issue is. We tortured people. I see this as a big deal. Probably silly of me, thinking the US shouldn't have a policy of tortuing people.

Odd then how often enough entire Bush speeches were dismissed or ridiculed for single mistakes or even mispronunciations of single words. My how the standards have changed in the last few months.

Bush wasn't a bad speaker because of his (hilarious) mispronunciations. Quite the contrary, he was a pretty damn good public speaker - as anyone who gets that high in politics will be by necessity. He wasn't nearly as good of a public speaker, however, as Obama is - and not because of the mistakes made by either side. Public speaking (ESPECIALLY extemporaneous public speaking) is about so much more than gaffes.

God I'm tired, I can't get to all of this. Let's skip down to some hilarity.

There are some other ideas floating around out there, but really we haven't even been allowed to look into what other options we have because "we have to do something and do it now because something is better than nothing" and you can never let a crisis go to waste, when it can serve as a great excuse to pass an omnibus full of leftist dream projects and grab control over two major industries, all while growing government size, power and debt to stupefying proportions.

That idea is CRAZY. Basically, what he wants the US government to do is buy up bank stock to artificially push it higher. Yep, that won't cost any money. And it will magically recapitalize the banks. And then somehow it will allow bad banks to fail without taking down the rest of the system. How? HE DOESN'T SAY. And that's the rub, really; it's why we did TARP, it's why we're doing these stress tests, it's why we're probably going to have to give a few 10s of billions more to Citi and Bank of America. The demise of Lehman Brothers almost took down the entire world's finanical system. Citi or Bank of America, which are much, MUCH larger, going under probably would take it down. With consequences so dire I can't even imagine how bad it would be.

Yes, that's what you said... and what I said was, why is the only place you can read about this alleged atrocity an assertion made by his defense lawyer, and an obscure article in a magazine hardly anybody ever reads that is probably pretty desperate to make a splash and draw in readership asap? Why is there no mention of this in any major media news source, most of which was hostile to the administration? Why IS the CNN article "misleading" when it could have been damning, particularly when they aspire so often to be so? It smells funny. But I reiterate, if he WAS in fact denied medical treatment for his gunshot wound, then yes, that is beyond the pale and something should have been (and still should be, apparently) done about it.

It's not just blindly asserted by the defense. If so, I would take it with a giant grain of salt. However, they refer that quote to "Gov't Disc. Letter #2" which presumably is a government document obtained by the defense that either a)isn't online or b)I can't find because I'm not a lawyer. But they wouldn't just lie about a government document in a court filing - not something that's so easy to check and whose refutation would completely destroy their case.

Maybe lots of smaller banks wouldn't have helped after all.

Did you not read one of your links again? The article doesn't show that at all. First of all, lots of smaller banks would have been better because, when they failed, they wouldn't have had to have government bailouts because their failure wouldn't have taken down the whole system. And sure enough, lots of banks are failing in Georgia, with no bailouts, without huge repercussions. Secondly, I'll direct you to this quote:

[quote[First, Georgia is home to a huge number of state and federally chartered banks. At the end of 2008, Georgia had 334 banks. That's more than California, which has nearly four times Georgia's population, or Florida, which has twice as many people. Only five states - Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa and Kansas - have more banks than Georgia, according to the FDIC.[/quote]
My bold. If the reason lots of banks failing in Georgia was JUST because there were way too many banks for each person, Iowa and Kansas would have MUCH larger problems than Georgia (more banks, way less people). They don't. Why not? Iowa and Kansas didn't have a giant housing industry that spun out of control - Atlanta did. The problem was lots of banks combined with a bubble - although note that, as I said above, at least all these banks failing don't require government bailouts. Wouldn't it be awesome if the rest of the country was like that?

 

[Lamont]

Every canadian I've spoken with using actual vocal cords has said that Montreal is a crazy shit hole full of mentally ill francophiles. /shrug.

You're a charmer and no mistake.

Francophones, you silly ass. Francophones. Francophiles in Montréal, for heaven's sake. :eyeroll: I defy you to find more than three on a busy street at any given time.

We're not going to get anywhere until you start speaking English here. Or we can do this in French or in German. Whatever suits you better.

But you have to admit, the dominant cultural influence on the world currently and for the forseeable future, for good or ill (Sorry about Reality TV, you guys. Really.), is american culture. Or perhaps, more specifically, hollywood.

Don't apologize for Reality TV, you're not at fault. Most big hits in the genre originated in Europe and you're watching an Americanised version (Big Brother is a Dutch concept, American Idol started in the UK, and so on). You're off the hook.

 

[Espy]

Don't apologize about Reality TV, you're not at fault. Most big hits in the genre originated in Europe and you're watching an Americanised version (Big Brother is a Dutch concept, American Idol started in the UK, and so on). You're off the hook.

Oh sure, but look at it this way, a small foreign company struggling to survive finds a little turd and they try and make money off it, an American company comes in, buys that turd turns it into a GIANT turd and then spreads it worldwide, covering everything with shit.
Thats why we aren't off the hook.