LawTalkers - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I did not do well and yet despite this I know what perjury is, why it is wrong and I respect the rule of law. 3 things I don't share with my fellow Americans who call themselves Demos.

Kennedys drown women, and 50% of them simply walk away from it (well, swim, but still). Is that right?

http://images.google.com/images?q=tb...ople/Teddy.jpg
I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Kopechne.

Hank Chinaski

07-11-2005 10:40 PM

Crossover Post

Quote:

what catagory was Clinton and the Senate in '96?

What catagory was the UN?

I give you Kofi didn't believe, he was for continuing status quo cuz of the kickbacks.

Penske_Account

07-11-2005 10:41 PM

Crossover Post

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm saying taking all the evidence that the WMD intell was cooked by Bush and his admin, yet still believing Bush did not lie, or at a minimum, actively maintain willful ignorance, makes the person who nevertheless believes Bush was honest in the way he took us into Iraq either an imbecile, delusional or suspending disbelief. You can pick which variety of idiot you think best suits you, but you're in one.

I dislike Bush supporters because you're shrill morons. You have to keep this sanctimonious pedestal for your boy. I voted for Bubba. I loved him. Best moderate republican we ever had. But he was a fucking dirty liar and a manipulator. They all are, and Bush is a screaming four star king liar/manipulator. Just admit he's as dirty as Bubba and we'll be done with this. But you can't do that. You have to make asinine distinctions between lies and manipulations, as though the legal code were the law of physics. You need therapy. You sound like some first year law student douchebag enamored with his new found knowledge. "The law is a vigorous document... why, its the very base of all of mankind... the bedrock of everything." Jesus, if things were only thaat fucking simple. Its a bunch of rules on paper, and its trashed, perverted and twisted in more circles than a Thai whore. And don't forget the persecution of Bubba was politically motivated. You've said that lying to avoid a political witch hunt is a graver sin than lying to drag a nation into war, an absurd argument. Pick a new God; law ain't what you want to praying to.

Lying where people die as a consequence, though technically not a lie under [insert Spanky's favorite legal text here], is certainly every bit as loathesome as lying under some code of rules.

Bush didn't lie. there were WMDs.

Diane_Keaton

07-12-2005 12:33 AM

Crossover Post

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
He was a caged impotent dictator. He was contained. Utterly contained in every conceivable regard. All the poor sap could do was pop off some shots at UN planes every now and again. He was pathetic.

Yes, contained and comfortable, all as his people suffered from a decade of sanctions (and torture) which would have went on forever as he had no plans to comply with any security resolution. Sanctions are supposed to get the government to change their course of action. But here it didn't work. Nice that you'd have just hung back and let the suffering continue, mumbling stuff about containers from your comfy couch. Pretty sad we have to explain going in to a place like that on a WMD basis. There's weren't WMDs in Rwanda either, and I suppose you'd have let the Hutu government continue their slaughter.

Oh the Lack of Humanity.

Penske_Account

07-12-2005 12:49 AM

Crossover Post

Quote:

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
There's weren't WMDs in Rwanda either, and I suppose you'd have let the Hutu government continue their slaughter.

Oh the Lack of Humanity.

The slaughter of the Hutus or the gassing of the Kurds was humanely quick slaughter compared with the slow death that the liberals inflicted upon Terri Schiavo. Or the cruel and unusual life sentence of oppression metted out to Elian.

Did you just call me Coltrane?

07-12-2005 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ps. If Coltrane doesn't post an intelligent response to this I vote he be banned from this board. Let's take the step of serarating the wheat from the chaff BEFORE we lose a paigow like the FB did.

Yeah, I guess I'd try to ban me too if I couldn't break 50 min in a 10k.

Do you recall when Bush stated that he's not concerned about Bin Laden? Not concerned about him means not focused on him. Bush promised to "smoke him out of his cave" and "capture him dead or alive." Well, what happened?

"I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."

But we're doing all we could (and can) to track him down, right? What about using Afghan troops in Tora Bora instead of US troops?

What about when, in 2002, "troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq."

Excerpt from here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...p-shifts_x.htm

Penske_Account

07-12-2005 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Yeah, I guess I'd try to ban me too if I couldn't break 50 min in a 10k.
]

Coltrane, I have always respected you and other than in extreme circumstances I would not cast my banishment vote, but I am concerned by this response.

I will give you a second chance to come clean, truth or dare:

Does W have a better 5K PR than you? Be honest, you will feel better.....there is no disgrace in 7 minute miles.

SlaveNoMore

07-12-2005 01:00 AM

Quote:

sebastian_dangerfield
Bite me. Half my friends were within a block of that blast. Luckily, they all made it out. Go ahead, take the cheap one and reply "All three of them?' Thats usually what you offer in the absence of solid facts.

One, I wasn't talking to you, ass. I was talking to Don't Call Me Asshat, with his moronic statements about the Islamists not posing a threat.

Two, I am grateful your friends got out. I'm willing to bet they feel a bit more like me on the topics of terror than you do.

Three, who the fuck are you kidding. You don't even have 3 friends.

Quote:

All the shiite you offered as proof of Hussein's danger is actually sad proof of his cagedness and impotence. You wouldn't really offer that shit in court, would you?

Pretext, through and through. Iraq was the easy war against the enemy we could beat and had a basis to go after. Problem was, the basis wasn't strong enough, so your boy dummied a thicker pretext. He made a villian out of a tin pot dictator who didn't have a fucking missile that could fly further than the far border of Syria. WMD my ass.

The peaceniks and pundits all said "we" needed to go to the "world" AND the UN to get permission to depose Saddam. So we did. The Administration, knowing fully well that there were multiple justifications to depose this bloodthirsty tyrant, went with the one rationale that universally agreed upon by Clinton, Albright, Blair, Chirac, Annan, the CIA, the FBI and the UN to be true.

I pointed out several other secondary pretexts - all true - that you somehow find irrelevant.

Quote:

The funniest thing about your absurd argument is that you cite Hussein's violations of UN resolutions as a basis. Gotta love GOP Chickenhawks. The UN isn't worth listening to, and it should be disbanded... but they've all got ten foot hard ons for Hussein when he violates its edicts. You're all fucking comedy.

If no one was going to bother enforcing the UN Resolutions, then what the fuck is the point of the institution (other than wasting valuable real estate on the East Side). If anything, the Bush Administration and the Coalition of the Willing gave that sackless institution some teeth.

BTW - if the GOP are chickenhawks, what are the Democrats? Appeasement Dodos? Do-nothing Ostriches?

SlaveNoMore

07-12-2005 01:02 AM

Crossover Post

Quote:

sebastian_dangerfield
I don't besmirch Bush for lying. ... He has the country's best intentions in mind.... I have no problem with Bush.

Ok, now I got it. Pleading in the Alternative.

Did you just call me Coltrane?

07-12-2005 01:10 AM

Crossover Post

Quote:

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Yes, contained and comfortable, all as his people suffered from a decade of sanctions (and torture) which would have went on forever as he had no plans to comply with any security resolution. Sanctions are supposed to get the government to change their course of action. But here it didn't work. Nice that you'd have just hung back and let the suffering continue, mumbling stuff about containers from your comfy couch. Pretty sad we have to explain going in to a place like that on a WMD basis. There's weren't WMDs in Rwanda either, and I suppose you'd have let the Hutu government continue their slaughter.

Oh the Lack of Humanity.

Shit. Some consistency would be nice. If we're doing this for humanitarian reasons, then we need to save everyone suffering under brutal dictators.* Oh wait, this is just another after-the-fact-rationalization-combined with-an-appeal-to-emotions-fallacy.
If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then welcome to Fallacyville. Population: You.

*I'm actually fine with this.

Did you just call me Coltrane?

07-12-2005 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Coltrane, I have always respected you and other than in extreme circumstances I would not cast my banishment vote, but I am concerned by this response.

I will give you a second chance to come clean, truth or dare:

Does W have a better 5K PR than you? Be honest, you will feel better.....there is no disgrace in 7 minute miles.

No. Hank is the one who can't break 50 mins. I can't break 35:00. I don't think W can run a sub-17 5k*

*which I'm not claiming is that fast, but I can't go sub-16.

SlaveNoMore

07-12-2005 01:14 AM

Quote:

SlaveNoMore
... Do-nothing Ostriches?

Speaking of putting one's head in the sand:

Quote:

BBC edits out the word terrorist
By Tom Leonard

The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.

Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".

The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".

Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.

Rod Liddle, a former editor of the Today programme, has accused the BBC of "institutionalised political correctness" in its coverage of British Muslims.

A BBC spokesman said last night: "The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC."

Penske_Account

07-12-2005 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
No. Hank is the one who can't break 50 mins. I can't break 35:00. I don't think W can run a sub-17 5k*

*which I'm not claiming is that fast, but I can't go sub-16.

Sub 16:30?

sebastian_dangerfield

07-12-2005 07:45 AM

I'll Make It Simple, Slave

We could argue past each other for days, so I'll try to hone it to a simpler point...

I used to do crim work. I had clients come in and tell me variations of a story, and it made me cringe. I knew that if your story changed, even slightly, you were probably guilty. And juries seemed to recognize that very quickly. In both civil and criminal courts, man who changes his explanation or offers 10 disparate reasons for his innocence usually finds himself a judgment creditor or behind bars.

I know that Bush had good inetntions in manipulating, remaining willfully ignorant and probably lying to get us into Iraq. Its pretty opbvious his admin cooked the intell. And that his supporters keep changing his basis for going all but proves their culpability. Everyone knows it, but his admin isn't prosecuted because nobody can stomacch another Clinton/Lewinsky mess, and everyone is afraid of pushing the Republic toward turmoil during a "war on terror." We all went along with Iraq. We knew he couldn't sell the real reason for the war (reshaping the middle east) so we all played ostrich while the pretext was built from tortured facts. I'm not some idiot who believes we went there for oil. I understand thaat it was a bold and daring reaction, and might still change the world for the better. So I don't call for Bush's impeachment.

BUT, what I can't stomach are those who refuse to call a lie/manipulation/cooking of intell for what it is. Its just embarrassing to suggest that Bush wasn't forcing us into Iraq under a pretext. Its as obvious as the nose on your face that that is exactly what happened. Perhaps history will judge his manipulation necessary, possibly visionary.

But it was a manipulation. There is no doubt about that. And every oddball fact you scavange from dusty UN reports, and every disparate new tortured justification you offer to create a legitimate basis just helps to prove my point.

Hank Chinaski

07-12-2005 07:53 AM

Quote:

6'11" guys don't run sub 6 miles.

but how about IQ? I can't break the 150 mark. Have you earned your 3rd digit yet?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:38 AM.

Page 225 of 334