Two questions:

[Nordic Superman]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040204-4.html  - 2004

bush likens his tough journey to Churchill's quite often.  This week I think he was referring to how churchil stood up to hitler, just as he is standing up to bin laden.  i will try to dig up monday's speech.

Hmm... i'm not impressed with Bush over this

I can accept relating the situations to each other, but the personal comparisons you say he makes are disgusting.

[Mr. Intenseone]

1) Are you okay with the CIA now admitting to having secret prisons where the restrictions of law, rules of war, and Geneva convention do not apply?

2) Would you send your son to fight a war in Iran?

Funny how these questions come up when Bush is in office, it's not like these prisons haven't been around forever.....of course I'm okay with it. As for my, I would leave it up to him and pray he makes it home alive!!

[240 is Back]

Funny how these questions come up when Bush is in office, it's not like these prisons haven't been around forever.....of course I'm okay with it. As for my, I would leave it up to him and pray he makes it home alive!!

Dude, Clinton was a bag of shit - let's be clear there.

The prisons have gone up greatly under Bush.  Of course they were wong under bubba and they're equally wrong under bush.

Mr I, have you heard what they do to people there?  they hold people under water, they beat them, they starve them, they use temperature extremes... why?  Because "regular prisons don't give us enough intel".  tell me, what good info is khalid sheikh mohammed going to give you after 5 years of torture, that he couldn't give up after 4?

I think this is a really big case of it being okay as long as it's not you.  If you happened to be arrested for something, let's just say a terrorist opened a phone book and pointed to your name and said 'yeah, i worked with that guy' and the luck of the dice led you to a CIA interrogation room... would anal penetration be an acceptable way of asking YOU questions? 

[Hugo Chavez]

My employer is a american company.

Show me where bush has quoted Churchill, or used any of the quotes in this post. I'd like to read them.

You believe my opinions only have credability if I join the services? So... no one who hasn't been in the services can't have opinions on war? Kinda like you can't judge a pro bodybuilder unless you are a pro bodybuilder?

Not an exact quote from Bush, more of the Administration Message for the week.  And it's been spewed all week from the right.  That Churchill Quote has been all over the place on the right this week. After Bush likened the fight we're in now to the stuggle Churchill had.  I think it was actually Donald Rumsfeld this week that used that same exact quote from Churchill. This all comes right at the same time they move the fight from "the war on terror" to the war on "islamic facism" Bush compaired the press/anti-war crowd to the appeasers... Just today Giuliani calle Bush America's Churchill.... It's the message of the week as handed from the Beast to Rove to Cheney to Bush to every neocon pundit.

Oh PS... I didn't say you couldn't have your opinion on war... I'm saying you're a Chickenhawk for being such a vocal warmonger having never served.  Invade Iran.... Invade Pakistan... you say...  Fine that's your opinion you are entitled to it... Doesn't mean you're not a Chickenhawk, because that is exactly what you are.  You believe so strongly in this aggression, but just not strong enough to actually take up the real fighting.... Some else can do that and you'll just sit here and talk the toughguy talk and give some bogus "i'm doing a greater good for an AMERICAN company"  As if the troops don't have other important things they could be doing You believe this strongly about this war, you should be signing up fucker.

[Al-Gebra]

Not an exact quote from Bush, more of the Administration Message for the week.  And it's been spewed all week from the right.  That Churchill Quote has been all over the place on the right this week. After Bush likened the fight we're in now to the stuggle Churchill had.  I think it was actually Donald Rumsfeld this week that used that same exact quote from Churchill. This all comes right at the same time they move the fight from "the war on terror" to the war on "islamic facism" Bush compaired the press/anti-war crowd to the appeasers... Just today Giuliani calle Bush America's Churchill.... It's the message of the week as handed from the Beast to Rove to Cheney to Bush to every neocon pundit.

Oh PS... I didn't say you couldn't have your opinion on war... I'm saying you're a Chickenhawk for being such a vocal warmonger having never served.  Invade Iran.... Invade Pakistan... you say...  Fine that's your opinion you are entitled to it... Doesn't mean you're not a Chickenhawk, because that is exactly what you are.  You believe so strongly in this aggression, but just not strong enough to actually take up the real fighting.... Some else can do that and you'll just sit here and talk the toughguy talk and give some bogus "i'm doing a greater good for an AMERICAN company"  As if the troops don't have other important things they could be doing You believe this strongly about this war, you should be signing up fucker.

isn't it time for you to have a nice long cry over steve irwin?

[240 is Back]

When it comes to voting on going into war, i think the vote of someone who served should be worth about 3 times more than someone who didn't.

Look at the administration -
Bush- slipped out of nat'l guard duty
Cheney- I don't think he served
Rummy - I know he didn't serve
Condi - college professor at 22 or something, right? never served.

Until you lay on the ground and fear you're about to be ended by enemy gunfire, you can never fully comprehend war.  Very rarely will you see someone who has served, screaming for immediate war and discounting the value of negotiation.

[SinCitysmallGUY]

Sodimy is not acceptable... It makes me question the sanity of the people who did it..... But since i have personally served in the military of the US... i see nothing wrong with beating the living shit out of these camel jockey towel headed SAND N*GGERS Gimmie a break if my battle mates are going down from mines, grenades and the rest of the shit these scumbags use.... And i get the chance to interrigate one of these bastards he's talking or im ripping off his fingernails. cutting his eyelids, beating him with my hands, cutting his tounge.... damn man id be getting buck on these fools.. Imagine what they do to our soldiers, they beat them, rape our women soldiers... they'd be lucky if they werent thrown to the guard dogs. or shot in the nuts. PRAY FOR OUR TROOPS TO COME HOME ALIVE.... THERES NO RULES WHEN IT COMES TO LOVE OR WAR!!!!!!!!

[Al-Gebra]

When it comes to voting on going into war, i think the vote of someone who served should be worth about 3 times more than someone who didn't.

Look at the administration -
Bush- slipped out of nat'l guard duty
Cheney- I don't think he served
Rummy - I know he didn't serve
Condi - college professor at 22 or something, right? never served.

Until you lay on the ground and fear you're about to be ended by enemy gunfire, you can never fully comprehend war.  Very rarely will you see someone who has served, screaming for immediate war and discounting the value of negotiation.

so much for Abraham Lincoln--one of the two greatest/best presidents we ever had.

[240 is Back]

so much for Abraham Lincoln--one of the two greatest/best presidents we ever had.

I didn't say they get NO vote.  I said their counterparts WITH military experience should have a tad more decision making power. 

Bush & Co approach the war in terms of economics.  Other leaders approach it from experience.  Those who use economics to make decisions are more likely to approve a war if the long term NPV deems it worth it.  War vets will do more to ensure the men they govern don't have to go thru the same hell they did.

[Al-Gebra]

I didn't say they get NO vote.  I said their counterparts WITH military experience should have a tad more decision making power. 

Bush & Co approach the war in terms of economics.  Other leaders approach it from experience.  Those who use economics to make decisions are more likely to approve a war if the long term NPV deems it worth it.  War vets will do more to ensure the men they govern don't have to go thru the same hell they did.

although I'd be fine w your system as I come from a family in which many serve(d) . . . not only are you delusional, you have no sense of the constitution.

[240 is Back]

although I'd be fine w your system as I come from a family in which many serve(d) . . . not only are you delusional, you have no sense of the constitution.

LOL Obviously, one person one vote.  I didn't mean there should be actually applied, sorry if it came across that way.  perhaps it's that the people should be smart enough to elect a person who will bring in military experience on his staff.  Or perhaps congress needs to sack up and quit voting party line.

[Al-Gebra]

\ perhaps it's that the people should be smart enough to elect a person who will bring in military experience on his staff.

thought we already established that was stupid . . . Lincoln-great pres USG=great general, lousy pres.  Where's your sense of history?

[Hugo Chavez]

isn't it time for you to have a nice long cry over steve irwin?

I'm not in the least bit bothered to admit I have done exactly that...  You on the other hand have to make your points with statements like this... Translation: I don't have shit to refute you

[Al-Gebra]

I'm not in the least bit bothered to admit I have done exactly that...  You on the other hand have to make your points with statements like this... Translation: I don't have shit to refute you

if i'd read your gibberish in the first place, maybe . . .

[240 is Back]

thought we already established that was stupid . . . Lincoln-great pres USG=great general, lousy pres.  Where's your sense of history?

Neither man had the time, money, or technology to take out iran.  Which one would have been more likely to do it? I do not know.

I think you're railroading the actual topic here. 

Is torture cool? Would you send your son to die? 

And, how can one consier his country "superior" if he condones torture?

[Al-Gebra]

Neither man had the time, money, or technology to take out iran.  Which one would have been more likely to do it? I do not know.

I think you're railroading the actual topic here. 

Is torture cool? Would you send your son to die? 

And, how can one consier his country "superior" if he condones torture?

no, torture is not cool. and i do not condone it. but if you put yourself in a position in which the Geneva convention no longer protects your rights . . . I don't really give a flying fukc about what happens to you.

if my son was in the army, and if his commander-in-chief sent him to Iran, he would go to Iran. Anyone who knows the army knows that.

[Hugo Chavez]

no, torture is not cool. and i do not condone it. but if you put yourself in a position in which the Geneva convention no longer protects your rights . . . I don't really give a flying f**k about what happens to you.

if my son was in the army, and if his commander-in-chief sent him to Iran, he would go to Iran. Anyone who knows the army knows that.

What's really sad is that you're so much better at just being a smart ass.  Your arguments suck.  Now I know why you resort to being a smart ass so often If only idiots like you and Intenseone would also post some eye candy with your retarded words too, it wouldn't be so fucking lame.

[Al-Gebra]

What's really sad is that you're so much better at just being a smart ass.  Your arguments suck.  Now I know why you resort to being a smart ass so often If only idiots like you and Intenseone would also post some eye candy with your retarded words too, it wouldn't be so fucking lame.

why don't you stick to crying hun? you talking about anything martial just doesn't seem right.

[240 is Back]

no, torture is not cool. and i do not condone it. but if you put yourself in a position in which the Geneva convention no longer protects your rights . . . I don't really give a flying f**k about what happens to you.

"Put yourself into a position in which Geneva no longer protects..."

Remember, the US ousted the Taliban despite the Taliban's offer to give up Osama.  The US just had to deliver some proof OBL was involved - which they never had. 

So the men captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.  What did they do to the US?  Assuming our eyes tell the truth and OBL tape was faked, we invaded a country with zero evidence of guilt.  We ousted the govt for protecting a guy we had no proof did anything wrong.  And anyone who was captured on the field fighting in their own country against an invader with zero proof for one man living here...

Does that pass the smell test?

[Hugo Chavez]

why don't you stick to crying hun? you talking about anything martial just doesn't seem right.

Is that all you got lol

[ToxicAvenger]

1) Are you okay with the CIA now admitting to having secret prisons where the restrictions of law, rules of war, and Geneva convention do not apply?

2) Would you send your son to fight a war in Iran?

Rob...your phones r tapped...


mine already r

[240 is Back]

Rob...your phones r tapped...
mine already r

Because I exercise my freedom of speech?  I've never made an international call in my life.

I thought they only tapped international calls...

[ToxicAvenger]

Because I exercise my freedom of speech?  I've never made an international call in my life.

I thought they only tapped international calls...

riiight...lol

[ToxicAvenger]

oo btw..a phone switch works kinda like an ethernet switch..not really hard to tap anyone..
ph # = ip addy

[240 is Back]

that federal ethics oversight committee, set up by the 911 commission to prevent abuses, showed up to work today only to discover the white house didn't reserve any money for them. 

And they're so darn eager to investigate that warantless wiretapping deal.

Speaking of, I hear they upheld that judges' ruling that it's unconstitutional.  bravo.