PDA

View Full Version : Wow, this is stooping pretty low



hokiefan
02-07-2014, 03:00 PM
The GOP is setting up fake websites for Democratic candidates. Dirty pool even in a rotten business.

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-setting-fake-websites-democratic-candidates-072234718.html

TomF
02-07-2014, 03:08 PM
crickets.

BrianY
02-07-2014, 03:15 PM
is anyone really surprised by this?

That being said, I hope somone ends up in jail because of it.

bobbys
02-07-2014, 03:22 PM
I see no link to it but there are lots of single girls in my town.

Figment
02-07-2014, 03:23 PM
The really staggering part of it is that, presumably, they thought this would go unnoticed, or at least that they would get away with it somehow.

It's just so DUMB.

Maybe not dumb on the same level as the Christie staff using email to communicate a petty vindictive lane-closure snafu, but still pretty dumb.

delecta
02-07-2014, 03:26 PM
I'm sure you were equally outraged over this?

http://www.tpnn.com/2013/11/05/virginia-governor-race-a-huge-victory-for-the-tea-party/

BrianY
02-07-2014, 03:30 PM
(in response to delecta's question)

Actually, yes.

I think it was unethical and damaging to the electoral process. If it can be proven that laws were broken, then the folks responsible should be tried and convicted.

TomF
02-07-2014, 03:31 PM
Actually, yes.

I think it was unethical and damaging to the electoral process. If it can be proven that laws were broken, then the folks responsible should be tried and convicted.Yep. As Bobby says below, had I been aware of it ... I'd have been every bit as outraged.

John of Phoenix
02-07-2014, 03:40 PM
This is just more of the reds' "Fear, hate and lies". Same ****, different day.

Thanks for the heads up. I just dropped a few bucks at Ann's real website. http://www.kirkpatrickforarizona.com

CWSmith
02-07-2014, 03:50 PM
There are people on any issue who believe the ends justify the means. More to the point, they possess a sense of overwhelming correctness that not only justifies what they do, but removes all question of should they do it. It is the frustration that comes with repeatedly losing a fight they believe they inherently deserve to win.

On a related subject, I knew a German fellow who unexpectedly went into an anti-Semitic rant against a particular person and all I could think was "Who do you hang with that you think this is acceptable?" The same is true for those who practice deceptive politics.

I fear that elements in the Republican Party have fallen victim to the belief in success at any cost.

BETTY-B
02-07-2014, 03:52 PM
This is just more of the reds' "Fear, hate and lies". Same ****, different day.

Thanks for the heads up. I just dropped a few bucks at Ann's real website. http://www.kirkpatrickforarizona.com

Thanks for the link, John. I did too.

hokiefan
02-07-2014, 04:24 PM
I'm sure you were equally outraged over this?

http://www.tpnn.com/2013/11/05/virginia-governor-race-a-huge-victory-for-the-tea-party/

I wasn't outraged because I wasn't aware of it. The Tea Party News is not on my normal reading list and I haven't seen it anywhere else. I do think it is a slimy tactic and wrong as it is described there.

Cheers,

Bobby

John of Phoenix
02-07-2014, 04:29 PM
What's to be outraged about? It's a TP web site raving about things the TP raves about.

bogdog
02-07-2014, 04:35 PM
I'm sure you were equally outraged over this?

http://www.tpnn.com/2013/11/05/virginia-governor-race-a-huge-victory-for-the-tea-party/What specifically is to be outraged about this?

htom
02-07-2014, 04:36 PM
This has been going on so long (from both sides) that it shouldn't be news.

hokiefan
02-07-2014, 04:42 PM
What specifically is to be outraged about this?

If the Democrats really ran a fake Libertarian candidate to take Republican votes I consider that slimy at best.

Cheers,

Bobby

bogdog
02-07-2014, 04:48 PM
If the Democrats really ran a fake Libertarian candidate to take Republican votes I consider that slimy at best.

Cheers,

Bobby

Back checking the story that is not what happened. Money was given to a libertarian PAC that normally only dealt with Texas politics by a Texan citizen in January of 2013. The PAC decided later in the year they would fund a Virginia libertarian candidate when he decided to run long after the money had been given to the PAC for Texas races.

Keith Wilson
02-07-2014, 04:50 PM
16 fake websites!?! Jesus T. Christ. If that's not illegal, it should be.

Garret
02-07-2014, 05:12 PM
& his brother Jesus H!

I certainly hope people go to jail for this.

Garret
02-07-2014, 05:13 PM
Back checking the story that is not what happened. Money was given to a libertarian PAC that normally only dealt with Texas politics by a Texan citizen in January of 2013. The PAC decided later in the year they would fund a Virginia libertarian candidate when he decided to run long after the money had been given to the PAC for Texas races.

You expect Delecta to backcheck? If Fox said it, it must be true!

bogdog
02-07-2014, 05:29 PM
You expect Delecta to backcheck? If Fox said it, it must be true!What surprised me was that The Blaze and Breitbart would fabricate such a story even after having interviewed Wes Benedict the founder of the Libertarian Booster PAC. Here's part of what he said:


It was my idea, and my decision, to have the Libertarian Booster PAC help recruit Libertarian Party candidates in 2013 in Virginia. I even advertised about it in February. (http://www.libertarianboosterpac.org/1/post/2013/02/libertarian-booster-pac-expanding-eyeing-virginia.html)According to The Blaze, "[Rush] Limbaugh said the Democrats enlisted a 'fake Libertarian candidate' who was 'bought and paid for by an Obama bundler.'" That's an outright lie, and Limbaugh should retract his claim.
My strategies and tactics have never been secret. They are common strategies in the Libertarian Party, and they are the same strategies promoted at the founding of the Libertarian Party. I try to publicize them any way I can. I've even written a book about them and included a chapter about PACs.
I want Libertarians to win elections. But I also want them to run for office even when they're unlikely to win. Why? To get the public to discuss and consider libertarian principles...

Gerarddm
02-07-2014, 05:31 PM
Republicans win every iimbo contest.

Ian McColgin
02-07-2014, 08:29 PM
But the Republicans need the excuse, just as they went about impeaching Clinton because Nixon had suborned our democracy.

delecta
02-08-2014, 07:34 AM
I believe I did back check the story and I stand by what I said. If you read between the lines you have Benedict in Texas running a PAC to get Libertarians on the ballot on a local level. Here is a quote that describes his position " Republicans deserve to lose lots of election for supporting bailouts" All of a sudden you have this huge Obama/Democrat supporter meeting with Benedict and he then supplies just enough money and support to get Sarvis on the ballot and that was it. Liemandt gave Benedict 150k but only 11k was spent on Sarvis which leads me to be believe that Liemandt influenced Benedict to get involved in the Virginia race and hopefully will use the rest of the money to do the same in other elections. Considering Benedict was only involved in local Texas elections up until that point I don't think its a stretch to conclude there might have been some outside influence. Anyway you look at it, Liemandt didn't give a 150k to Benedict because he became a Libertarian over night. He gave the money to do exactly what happened in Virginia. Whether Benedict is a true Libertarian or just hates Republicans, the out come for Liemandt is the same.

If Benedict is such a staunch Libertarian how could he support Sarvis? Many of his views are contrary to Libertarian views including supporting GPS/tracking in all cars, what Libertarian would support that? Considering the last time he ran as a Republican and not a conservative one at that the label fake Libertarian is quite appropriate.

Anyway you look at it Liemandt gave money to the "other" party just to influence elections. I searched and could not find any evidence of him giving to the green party anywhere.

Chris Coose
02-08-2014, 08:06 AM
Baggers have discovered the Internet and they are screwing with it?

bogdog
02-08-2014, 08:34 AM
I believe I did back check the story and I stand by what I said. If you read between the lines you have Benedict in Texas running a PAC to get Libertarians on the ballot on a local level. Here is a quote that describes his position " Republicans deserve to lose lots of election for supporting bailouts" All of a sudden you have this huge Obama/Democrat supporter meeting with Benedict and he then supplies just enough money and support to get Sarvis on the ballot and that was it. Liemandt gave Benedict 150k but only 11k was spent on Sarvis which leads me to be believe that Liemandt influenced Benedict to get involved in the Virginia race and hopefully will use the rest of the money to do the same in other elections. Considering Benedict was only involved in local Texas elections up until that point I don't think its a stretch to conclude there might have been some outside influence. Anyway you look at it, Liemandt didn't give a 150k to Benedict because he became a Libertarian over night. He gave the money to do exactly what happened in Virginia. Whether Benedict is a true Libertarian or just hates Republicans, the out come for Liemandt is the same.

If Benedict is such a staunch Libertarian how could he support Sarvis? Many of his views are contrary to Libertarian views including supporting GPS/tracking in all cars, what Libertarian would support that? Considering the last time he ran as a Republican and not a conservative one at that the label fake Libertarian is quite appropriate.

Anyway you look at it Liemandt gave money to the "other" party just to influence elections. I searched and could not find any evidence of him giving to the green party anywhere.

Again no back checking, Benedict had been receiving funding from Joe Liemandt since 2008 there was nothing sudden about his support. He's the current director of the Libertarian National Committee, sounds like he's committed to Libertarian candidates to me. Why would he give money to any other candidates such as the Green Party? Here's the ad he ran in Feburary 2013: http://www.libertarianboosterpac.org/about.html

Ian McColgin
02-08-2014, 08:36 AM
Righties are never wrong. That's why their rationalizations are so very long.

Paul Pless
02-08-2014, 08:39 AM
Righties are never wrong. That's why their rationalizations are so very long.

have you been reading the oz mud dumping thread again??? :D

pefjr
02-08-2014, 09:07 AM
I'm sure you were equally outraged over this?

http://www.tpnn.com/2013/11/05/virginia-governor-race-a-huge-victory-for-the-tea-party/ Politics as usual. Their whining is par. Their excuses are predictable. The buying of votes goes on openly, and they say nothing because as IAN says, " it is not their ox being gored".

delecta
02-08-2014, 09:18 AM
Think what you want, he has given far more money to the democrat side including a donation to McAuliffe in that actual race. I can see a Republican leaning towards a Libertarian but a Democrat? If he was committed to the party wouldn't it make sense to give more then he does for democrats? I can see hedging your bets and giving to both major parties, many business do that but the role he is playing with the libertarians is just spoiler.

Are you trying to tell me that you think Liemandt is a Libertarian?

bogdog
02-08-2014, 09:19 AM
Politics as usual. Their whining is par. Their excuses are predictable. The buying of votes goes on openly, and they say nothing because as IAN says, " it is not their ox being gored".Here's what Wes Benedict says about whining Republicans:
I realize that, no matter what I say, paranoid right-wingers will think I'm a sneaky operative trying to help Democrats beat Republicans. This message is for the rational people out there.

pefjr
02-08-2014, 09:27 AM
Here's what Wes Benedict says about whining Republicans:So? Betty said this, Jack said that.

Keith Wilson
02-08-2014, 09:32 AM
Give it up,guys; the BS about the Virginia election has been thorough debunked. And even had it not been, 'the other side does bad stuff too' is not much of an excuse. Sixteen fake websites designed to trick people into contributing to the candidate they oppose is pretty slimy by any standard. If it isn't illegal, it should be. Even Libertarians support laws against fraud.

Shang
02-08-2014, 09:33 AM
Vote against every Republican for every office.

delecta
02-08-2014, 10:23 AM
Delecta, if more of your facts were true, you'd have a stronger argument.

But even then, you haven't proved deception.

There's a huge difference between giving the voters another option and making a fake, deceptive website.

I'm not trying to justify the fake web sites at all, just pointing out some other games being played in elections.

No one really knows what Liemandts objective is because he hasn't commented, we do know the results though.

pefjr
02-08-2014, 10:37 AM
I'm not trying to justify the fake web sites at all I do, it is legal, all is fair in love, war, and politics. It is not as low down as buying votes with welfare dollars, nor attempting to ILLEGALLY steal the White House. Dems have no room for complaints, this is funny and again exposes their true nature.

pefjr
02-08-2014, 10:41 AM
Stooping low? really! dems complaining about the Repubs stooping low is too funny. ROFL

TomF
02-08-2014, 10:43 AM
Some things should not be legal. And not all things are fair in love, war, and politics. Courtrooms from Nuremberg to the average small town in any of our countries are proof of that.

No excuses, whoever gets stupidly unethical.

pefjr
02-08-2014, 10:45 AM
No excuses, whoever gets stupidly unethical.Maybe we could go back to JFK, or even Woodrow Wilson. This 'unethical' runs in the veins of dems. If you want to compare Nuremberg to it ....go for it.

John Smith
02-08-2014, 10:48 AM
The really staggering part of it is that, presumably, they thought this would go unnoticed, or at least that they would get away with it somehow.

It's just so DUMB.

Maybe not dumb on the same level as the Christie staff using email to communicate a petty vindictive lane-closure snafu, but still pretty dumb.

Some of the older folks here will remember Nixon's "dirty tricks". He paid people to disrupt the Republican convention and look like it was the Democrats doing it.

I find it disturbing that those one this forum who support the GOP express concerns about "character" of dems. Talk about the old pot complaining about the kettle.

TomF
02-08-2014, 10:51 AM
I threw Nuremberg in there in deference to you saying "all's fair in...". Because apparently, it ain't.

If you want to excuse fraud by claiming that nobody has clean hands, that's rather a poor predictor for the future health of your polity, eh? Why are you content not only to assert false equivalence, but to use it to excuse equivalence?

John Smith
02-08-2014, 10:55 AM
(in response to delecta's question)

Actually, yes.

I think it was unethical and damaging to the electoral process. If it can be proven that laws were broken, then the folks responsible should be tried and convicted.

I would be almost equally as outraged. My problem is I have a strong tendency not to believe this report is entirely accurate. The right, and it's 'news' wing, has cried "Wolf" so often that they've severely damaged their credibility.

Since Obama decided to run for president, I've gotten, I'm sure, over a thousand emails telling me very bad things about him, and I don't think more than 3 of them turned out to be true.

It would be nice if honesty was more present in our politics, but we, the people, accept being lied to as free speech.

Somewhere, a short while back, I posted links to the GOP making fake websites for people to sign up for the ACA. They were designed to look legit, but no one using them could ever actually sign up.

There is something, I think, very illegal about that sort of thing. But we've come to accept it as free speech, and we've done so, and we do so, at our great peril.

John Smith
02-08-2014, 10:57 AM
There are people on any issue who believe the ends justify the means. More to the point, they possess a sense of overwhelming correctness that not only justifies what they do, but removes all question of should they do it. It is the frustration that comes with repeatedly losing a fight they believe they inherently deserve to win.

On a related subject, I knew a German fellow who unexpectedly went into an anti-Semitic rant against a particular person and all I could think was "Who do you hang with that you think this is acceptable?" The same is true for those who practice deceptive politics.

I fear that elements in the Republican Party have fallen victim to the belief in success at any cost.

Some, I think, believe they are on a mission from God.

TomF
02-08-2014, 11:04 AM
If it makes you feel any better, Canada's federal government has just introduced legislation which restricts the role of Elections Canada. Prohibits Elections Canada from any public comments other than telling people where and when to vote.

No programs to encourage voting. No published reports to Canadians. No education to young people or recent immigrant populations. Nyet.

No stats on the voting behaviour of different groups. No comparisons with other polities.

Orwellian - the bill is described as promoting democratic reform. It's appropriate that it is introduced while we're focused on Putin.

pefjr
02-08-2014, 11:17 AM
If you want to excuse fraud by claiming that nobody has clean hands, There you boys go again slinging mud. If it's fraud , it's illegal, so see the DA and make the charges.

CWSmith
02-08-2014, 11:21 AM
Some, I think, believe they are on a mission from God.

They tell themselves that, but I think that money and fear are the real drivers. The rest is justification after the fact.

TomF
02-08-2014, 11:33 AM
There you boys go again slinging mud. If it's fraud , it's illegal, so see the DA and make the charges.things can be just this side of a crooked law, no? As I'd indicated is about to happen with Canada's "electoral reforms".

It's lying, deception, Pefjr, whether or not it meets the legal standard for "fraud" in the most technical sense. I wouldn't console myself in sliding under the wire of a poorly written (or perhaps intentionally vague) law.

pefjr
02-08-2014, 11:48 AM
I wouldn't console myself in sliding under the wire of a poorly written (or perhaps intentionally vague) law.Ha, ....only if your ox is not gored. You are no saint when it comes to politics, either yours or my countries. You are as blind, actually more blind politically than most, course that means you got an A in Norm's course. You lefties are all Norm's students, and whatever he posts, you follow, robotic, identical and loyal, marching in step, proud Graduates.

Gerarddm
02-08-2014, 11:53 AM
( sigh )


Remember: next election, vote against EVERY Republican, for EVERY office, at EVERY level. Be patriotic. Save the country.

TomF
02-08-2014, 11:56 AM
Ha, ....only if your ox is not gored. You are no saint when it comes to politics, either yours or my countries. You are as blind, actually more blind politically than most, course that means you got an A in Norm's course. You lefties are all Norm's students, and whatever he posts, you follow, robotic, identical and loyal, marching in step, proud Graduates.pefjr, open your bleeding eyes. And stop your freaking slander.

(insert bannable comment here)

CWSmith
02-08-2014, 11:56 AM
Ha, ....only if your ox is not gored. You are no saint when it comes to politics, either yours or my countries. You are as blind, actually more blind politically than most, course that means you got an A in Norm's course. You lefties are all Norm's students, and whatever he posts, you follow, robotic, identical and loyal, marching in step, proud Graduates.

...winning friends and influencing people since 2008. Bud, do you even know the difference between a debate and an assault? Can you disagree on the issues without character assassination?

Garret
02-08-2014, 12:09 PM
I can see a Republican leaning towards a Libertarian but a Democrat?

I realize Camden is a world unto its own, but if you were to visit some of the rest of northern New England, you'd find a ton of Dems who have Libertarian leanings. I'm one in fact.

What this roughly translates to is "Leave people alone & no we don't need more laws intruding on our privacy, but help those who need it".

Keith Wilson
02-08-2014, 12:18 PM
You lefties are all Norm's students, and whatever he posts, you follow, robotic, identical and loyal, marching in step, proud Graduates.This statement is false; total and complete foul malodorous bovine excrement.

CWSmith
02-08-2014, 12:33 PM
I realize Camden is a world unto its own, but if you were to visit some of the rest of northern New England, you'd find a ton of Dems who have Libertarian leanings. I'm one in fact.

What this roughly translates to is "Leave people alone & no we don't need more laws intruding on our privacy, but help those who need it".

It's also a good description of the traditional New Hampshire Republicans. Sadly, the Tea Party has made inroads, but only limited.

pefjr
02-08-2014, 01:00 PM
This statement is false; total and complete foul malodorous bovine excrement.hmmm.... I musta hit a guilty nerve, will practice up on my surgical precision. Did you make an A also?:d

oznabrag
02-08-2014, 01:02 PM
This statement is false; total and complete foul malodorous bovine excrement.

I agree with you completely, but it is not rude, apparently.

Keith Wilson
02-08-2014, 01:07 PM
Well, posting something that's stupid and wrong is not a bannable offense.

Don'cha just love how pefjr tries to pretend that strong disagreement is evidence that he's right?

Garret
02-08-2014, 01:07 PM
It's also a good description of the traditional New Hampshire Republicans. Sadly, the Tea Party has made inroads, but only limited.

Yessir. I'd say that the majority of folks in ME, NH, & VT lean this way - whether Dem or Rep. VT probably has a few more die-hard progressives than the other 2 - but I think the majority work this way.

pefjr
02-08-2014, 01:30 PM
Well, posting something that's stupid and wrong is not a bannable offense.

Don'cha just love how pefjr tries to pretend that strong disagreement is evidence that he's right?Yes, now is the time to pass some law against this goring of my ox. Now is the time to get Bud banned for pointing this hypocrisy out and laughing about it too. Push the button.:d Your fake ignore list have a hole in it?

delecta
02-08-2014, 01:54 PM
I realize Camden is a world unto its own, but if you were to visit some of the rest of northern New England, you'd find a ton of Dems who have Libertarian leanings. I'm one in fact.

What this roughly translates to is "Leave people alone & no we don't need more laws intruding on our privacy, but help those who need it".

I did not know this so I had to look it up, interesting.

Libertarian Democrats support the majority of positions of the Democratic Party. However they do not necessarily share identical viewpoints across the political spectrum; that is, they are more likely to support individual and personal freedoms.
In general they support tax cuts, Second Amendment rights, same-sex marriage, the decriminalization of marijuana, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and to a certain extent, hard money. They are more likely to oppose deficit spending, protectionism, subsidies (especially to corporations) race-based affirmative action and many regulations on small businesses.

So I'll double down, anyone that believes in that should not support BO, let alone raise almost a million dollars in two elections. BO doesn't support tax cuts, even though he extended them, has no use for the second amendment, non-interventionist foreign policy <giggle> , hard money? as if. Deficit spending, bring it on, subsidies.....Solyndra regulations on small business ACA.......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Democrat

The only thing Libertarian/Democrats want is cheap legal pot.

And what is this Camden crap, just about the most liberal town in Maine, you got that right a world unto it's own, the one you live in. :D

CWSmith
02-08-2014, 05:39 PM
Yessir. I'd say that the majority of folks in ME, NH, & VT lean this way - whether Dem or Rep. VT probably has a few more die-hard progressives than the other 2 - but I think the majority work this way.

Yes and no. Vermont is certainly more liberal. All three tend to lean toward good environmental practices, although it isn't hard to fault some of their decisions. However, when our conservatives get to Washington, they change into that same beast that populates congress so miserably.

Garret
02-08-2014, 05:59 PM
I did not know this so I had to look it up, interesting.

Libertarian Democrats support the majority of positions of the Democratic Party. However they do not necessarily share identical viewpoints across the political spectrum; that is, they are more likely to support individual and personal freedoms.
In general they support tax cuts, Second Amendment rights, same-sex marriage, the decriminalization of marijuana, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and to a certain extent, hard money. They are more likely to oppose deficit spending, protectionism, subsidies (especially to corporations) race-based affirmative action and many regulations on small businesses.

So I'll double down, anyone that believes in that should not support BO, let alone raise almost a million dollars in two elections. BO doesn't support tax cuts, even though he extended them, has no use for the second amendment, non-interventionist foreign policy <giggle> , hard money? as if. Deficit spending, bring it on, subsidies.....Solyndra regulations on small business ACA.......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Democrat

The only thing Libertarian/Republicans have is a cheap shot. (FTFY)

And what is this Camden crap, just about the most liberal town in Maine, you got that right a world unto it's own, the one you live in. :D

Compare Obama to the man he ran against. Wins by a landslide for me. Do I agree with him on everything? Heck no, never been a president I completely agreed with & there never will be.

Camden the most liberal town in ME? You really do need to get out more.

delecta
02-08-2014, 06:05 PM
Compare Obama to the man he ran against. Wins by a landslide for me. Do I agree with him on everything? Heck no, never been a president I completely agreed with & there never will be.

Camden the most liberal town in ME? You really do need to get out more.

Look at the election results and get back to me, or not.

Ian McColgin
02-08-2014, 06:07 PM
Here's the deal: Some libertarians gave money that was used by the libertarian bundler a couple of years later against Republicans versus some Republican operatives have created deceptive faux Democratic sites to syphon money from Democrats. If you think these are equivalent actions, you are a Nixon Republican.

delecta
02-08-2014, 06:19 PM
Delecta, if more of your facts were true, you'd have a stronger argument.

But even then, you haven't proved deception.

There's a huge difference between giving the voters another option and making a fake, deceptive website.

Actually I'm going to call you on this. I think my facts are spot on, if you want to claim his wife is the bundler so be it, other then that I can't see anything that isn't true. There is a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence to prove that he spent the money to effect the out come of elections. The only thing I can find to dispute this is the one with his hand out taking the money. And if he was a true Libertarian he wouldn't have backed the liberal republican.

I looked at a few of the web sites and it is completely obviously after reading a few sentences these were not created by the candidate. Don't you agree?

delecta
02-08-2014, 06:21 PM
Here's the deal: Some libertarians gave money that was used by the libertarian bundler a couple of years later against Republicans versus some Republican operatives have created deceptive faux Democratic sites to syphon money from Democrats. If you think these are equivalent actions, you are a Nixon Republican.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Sweet dreams.

Ian McColgin
02-08-2014, 06:55 PM
delecta, I can't help it if you refuse to notice the facts raised in posts like #19 and #23. You are as outrageous as the millenialists who when the world did not end when they fancied it would, still claimed that they were right. Must be nice to be right when Reality and God are wrong.

delecta
02-08-2014, 07:10 PM
delecta, I can't help it if you refuse to notice the facts raised in posts like #19 and #23. You are as outrageous as the millenialists who when the world did not end when they fancied it would, still claimed that they were right. Must be nice to be right when Reality and God are wrong.

There were no facts raised there or in your post, time to say good night .

Ian McColgin
02-08-2014, 07:15 PM
Denial by declaration. Good night.

delecta
02-08-2014, 07:17 PM
Denial by declaration. Good night.

You offered nothing, as usual. sleep well.

Ian McColgin
02-08-2014, 07:20 PM
Maybe the world really did end and we just didn't notice . . .

delecta
02-08-2014, 07:32 PM
Maybe the world really did end and we just didn't notice . . .

If you have nothing to offer go to bed, your snark replies might make you feel like you're still in the game but face it you don't have anything to offer, bringing up Nixon actually confirms this. Have a good nights sleep and I'm sure there will be a gun death e-mail waiting for you in the morning.

Garret
02-08-2014, 07:54 PM
Look at the election results and get back to me, or not.

Please reread what I said. I said "Wins by a landslide for me." Notice the "for me". In case you don't understand, my sentence was not "he won by a landslide". Those 2 things have entirely different meanings. I know you & I disagree on a lot of things, but I always figured you as pretty intelligent. Maybe I was wrong - or is this an example of absorbing what you want out of what someone said & ignoring what they really did say?

delecta
02-08-2014, 08:15 PM
Please reread what I said. I said "Wins by a landslide for me." Notice the "for me". In case you don't understand, my sentence was not "he won by a landslide". Those 2 things have entirely different meanings. I know you & I disagree on a lot of things, but I always figured you as pretty intelligent. Maybe I was wrong - or is this an example of absorbing what you want out of what someone said & ignoring what they really did say?

Your comment was about the town I live in, the town I live in is liberal. I advised you to check election results to confirm that. I'm not sure where you're going with this but it's really not that important. Don't you have some connection here with a brother or something? I love living in a liberal town, I keep to my self, don't discuses politics and they have lots of money.

John Smith
02-08-2014, 09:27 PM
Compare Obama to the man he ran against. Wins by a landslide for me. Do I agree with him on everything? Heck no, never been a president I completely agreed with & there never will be.

Camden the most liberal town in ME? You really do need to get out more.

I think that's a realistic view. I can't think of any president I've agreed with, or disagreed with, all the time. I disagreed with G.W. damned near all the time, but he was definitively an exception.

Even Nixon did some good things.

Sky Blue
02-08-2014, 10:23 PM
Compare Obama to the man he ran against. Wins by a landslide for me.



I assume you mean Romney. If you are referring to McCain, then I understand if your comments are in respect to policy matters, but as far as being "A Man" is concerned, McCain has forgotten more about manhood that BHO will ever know.

Garret
02-08-2014, 10:33 PM
I assume you mean Romney. If you are referring to McCain, then I understand if your comments are in respect to policy matters, but as far as being "A Man" is concerned, McCain has forgotten more about manhood that BHO will ever know.

Up until he caved on torture & OK'd Sarah Palin, I would've agreed with you.

Garret
02-08-2014, 10:35 PM
Your comment was about the town I live in, the town I live in is liberal. I advised you to check election results to confirm that. I'm not sure where you're going with this but it's really not that important. Don't you have some connection here with a brother or something? I love living in a liberal town, I keep to my self, don't discuses politics and they have lots of money.

Fine, whatever - the Camden thing was a complete aside - though I can see why you'd dodge the lack of reading ability.

I've lived in Maine (many years ago), traveled extensively in Maine, built a cabin on Moosehead, have a brother there & have kept my boat there for 14 years, including a lot of time ashore. So - I have a bit of experience with the state.

wardd
02-08-2014, 10:37 PM
I assume you mean Romney. If you are referring to McCain, then I understand if your comments are in respect to policy matters, but as far as being "A Man" is concerned, McCain has forgotten more about manhood that BHO will ever know.

as we live in the present, what has mccain been up to lately

Sky Blue
02-08-2014, 10:45 PM
Oh, not much Wardd, just continuing to serve his country, as he has since age 18, acting as a bulwark against the more virulent drinkers of the Tea, stuff like that.

wardd
02-08-2014, 11:15 PM
Oh, not much Wardd, just continuing to serve his country, as he has since age 18, acting as a bulwark against the more virulent drinkers of the Tea, stuff like that.

there were many tens of thousands that served and continued to serve by just being good citizens and i see nothing special in mccain in that

now lately his erratic behavior gives me much concern

CWSmith
02-08-2014, 11:53 PM
now lately his erratic behavior gives me much concern

Me, too. He made a real stand-up statement at one point in the campaign when a woman in his audience started bad mouthing Obama's character. He stopped her and said Obama was an honest man and it's about the issues. I wish I could find that man again - I respected him.

Sky Blue
02-09-2014, 01:12 AM
So, pretty much the same as John Kerry?

Yes, I very much respect Kerry's service (apart from that Congressional Testimony bit and his lies about being in Cambodia). If the Iran business works out, well, that will be one of the great diplomatic achievements of the last 30 years. I also wish he had defeated Bush; liked Bush in many ways but felt that change was needed. But then we would not have had all the "hope and change." Woo-Hoo.

ChaseKenyon
02-09-2014, 01:33 AM
I realize Camden is a world unto its own, but if you were to visit some of the rest of northern New England, you'd find a ton of Dems who have Libertarian leanings. I'm one in fact.

What this roughly translates to is "Leave people alone & no we don't need more laws intruding on our privacy, but help those who need it".

plus 2 my neighbor,

my wife and i do agree on many political facets but by none as all or even close to all. I am a libertarian who ends up being a liberal. I stand withe the delicate balance between logical social liberalism in the name of bettering ourselves and our society. However I tend toward being a staunch libertarian in fiscal terms. The balance between the two is the key to long term success for any civilization. When a society losses that balance it degrades into oligarchy and or fascism and or totalitarian communes. So I don't support financially, but do appreciate and vocally support the "Free Staters" as well as some of our NH pols, ( and Bernie and Howard Dean from VT), both dem and rep. I am more of a social liberal than the wife but also a stronger libertarian. She has evolved into mostly an "anti republican" based on how they operate if you do your own internet research.


So I guess we are close as I think that makes us here on our side of the river bank (note VT stops at the west bank of the CT river, NH owns the river and it's flow.) Dem leaning Libertarians and Centrists

ChaseKenyon
02-09-2014, 02:36 AM
Actually I'm going to call you on this. I think my facts are spot on, if you want to claim his wife is the bundler so be it, other then that I can't see anything that isn't true. There is a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence to prove that he spent the money to effect the out come of elections. The only thing I can find to dispute this is the one with his hand out taking the money. And if he was a true Libertarian he wouldn't have backed the liberal republican. what? Contradiction, does not compute, and will not reference. This appears to be an intentional oxymoron but the point of such is not very clear. Is it to mean a Centrist?

I looked at a few of the web sites and it is completely obviously after reading a few sentences these were not created by the candidate. Don't you agree?


Big D not trying to pic on you just this one hung me up a bit.


Affect

In order to understand the correct situation in which to use the word affect or effect, the first thing one must do is have a clear understanding of what each word means. The word affect (http://www.yourdictionary.com/affect) means to produce a change in something.
Effect

The word effect (http://www.yourdictionary.com/effect) has a different meaning. Effect is defined as a result of something or the ability to bring about a result.
This really cost me extra time to parse out what you were trying to say.

The money can be given to affect the election results. The money can have the effect of tilting or changing the results. I know it is my problem, but guys stop and think before writing things down as to what word and noun or pronoun or adjective and adverb or verb(oh my god a real verb) you really want.

I have not been able to parse out bud's ravings for several years now so I just don't bother anymore. I wait to see what the responses are instead.

something can have an effect as it would be the result, such as "the money could have an effect on the election". Whereas the money was given in the hopes of affecting the election.

something can have an effect

but the act of doing, an action, can be done to affect something.


I am not trying to be the grammar and vocab police here just this one really wrapped my head up as I was trying to watch my favorite part of the Olympics the Ice Dancing competition

too much time spent trying to decipher what is being said here anymore.

ChaseKenyon
02-09-2014, 02:45 AM
OOPs I had left the AI English language parser Turned on. (think multipath learning logic and language smart machine software subsets re-expanded from old echelon programs and SIRE. Look it up.

It is still learning to decipher colloquial language usage anomalies.



“Even then,” between 1974 and 1984 when she worked on ECHELON, it “was very big and sophisticated.”

“As early as 1979 we could track a specific person and zoom in on his phone conversation while he was communicating,” Newsham averred. “Since our satellites could in 1984 film a postage stamp lying on the ground, it is almost impossible to imagine how all-encompassing the system must be today.”When queried about “which part of the system is named Echelon,” Newsham told the reporters: “The computer network itself. The software programs are known as SILKWORTH and SIRE, and one of the most important surveillance satellites is named VORTEX. It intercepts things like phone conversations.”)

ChaseKenyon
02-09-2014, 03:10 AM
Oh, not much Wardd, just continuing to serve his country, as he has since age 18, acting as a bulwark against the more virulent drinkers of the Tea, stuff like that.


Dad was a O6/O7 command captain/commodore now called rear admiral. He was an expert on air maintenance and fighter/racing aircraft along with being the standing expert and plank owner founder of the first helicopter attack squadrons.

He did save ADM Rickover's (founder of the nuclear navy) son's Navy career. He and others had little use for little John and said if anyone else pulled even the first of many of his "escapades outside of duty with military equipment" they would have been out of the Navy, if not at least permanently out of the air.

Little John's record is available if you search and while he was a POW, there are many things that raise the question of if he should have been there.

I do not know who to believe. But I do know my dad did not think much of him. By repeating what my dad said to me when I was active duty and reserve and after my brother and his son who live in Phoenix are estranged from me. Just for repeating to them, on Facebook, what I was told by my father and that internet research backed our father's low opinion of John up.
If you vet your statement you will find much of his privileged youth was as a total candidate for leader of "Animal House".

So I am not impressed by your easily disproved claim of his service to the country since 18.

ChaseKenyon
02-09-2014, 03:12 AM
Me, too. He made a real stand-up statement at one point in the campaign when a woman in his audience started bad mouthing Obama's character. He stopped her and said Obama was an honest man and it's about the issues. I wish I could find that man again - I respected him.


yep

+2

TomF
02-09-2014, 07:00 AM
...as far as being "A Man" is concerned, McCain has forgotten more about manhood that BHO will ever know.That may be, I dunno.

The meaningful question for present leadership is not how much he's forgotten, but how much of it he still remembers.

IMO, slanderous accusations like "Obama the socialist" during the 2008 campaign showed that some amnesia had taken root. It's progressed under the onslaught from the radicals inside his own party.

Ian McColgin
02-09-2014, 08:06 AM
" . . . McCain has forgotten more about manhood . . . " [#80] Yep. That's part of the problem.

McCain is like most of us, a mix of factors. The fact that he turned his natural insoucience into heroism after being shot down did not qualify him for high command in the Navy and does not make him a policy expert in anything.

But in the matter of general honor (Keating Five aside: that was a learning moment.) McCain is spot on. He does not countenance overt lying or deceptive campaign tactics or racism in politics. That will forever leave him outside the TeaParty and other right wing hate mongers. His judgement (Palin, bomb Iran, etc) really sucks but he is honorable.

pefjr
02-09-2014, 10:10 AM
In the old west McCain would have been shot over his Chelsea joke. Today he is the only Congressman alive that could get away with that and not be shunned. It rolled off him like water off a duck's back. Before that, I had respect for him, none since.

John Smith
02-09-2014, 10:12 AM
I assume you mean Romney. If you are referring to McCain, then I understand if your comments are in respect to policy matters, but as far as being "A Man" is concerned, McCain has forgotten more about manhood that BHO will ever know.

McCain is another guy who's created an image of himself. Just enough "maverick" to keep that image, which is now hurting him.

FACT is McCain has changed his position, so often, on so many things, that I don't think even he knows what is opinion is. His first big decision as a nominee was picking Palin. We can thank him for her.

John Smith
02-09-2014, 10:14 AM
Oh, not much Wardd, just continuing to serve his country, as he has since age 18, acting as a bulwark against the more virulent drinkers of the Tea, stuff like that.

Actually, he is in trouble for not being conservative enough.

Any of his fans want to explain his position on immigration reform? Minimum wage? Women's rights? Or any other issue of the day?

John Smith
02-09-2014, 10:17 AM
there were many tens of thousands that served and continued to serve by just being good citizens and i see nothing special in mccain in that

now lately his erratic behavior gives me much concern

McCain, personally, is a hard guy to dislike. I'm not sure a soldier getting captured is a hero. Those who rescue captured soldiers are heroes.

I've also read some non flattering things about his time in captivity, but have no way of knowing if they are true or not.

What I do know is he is one of the greatest flip-floppers in congress.

John Smith
02-09-2014, 10:21 AM
" . . . McCain has forgotten more about manhood . . . " [#80] Yep. That's part of the problem.

McCain is like most of us, a mix of factors. The fact that he turned his natural insoucience into heroism after being shot down did not qualify him for high command in the Navy and does not make him a policy expert in anything.

But in the matter of general honor (Keating Five aside: that was a learning moment.) McCain is spot on. He does not countenance overt lying or deceptive campaign tactics or racism in politics. That will forever leave him outside the TeaParty and other right wing hate mongers. His judgement (Palin, bomb Iran, etc) really sucks but he is honorable.

I don't think he's been so honest.

Sky Blue
02-09-2014, 01:32 PM
" . . .
does not make him a policy expert in anything..

.


Debatable. Such events would have given him at least an informed opinion on issues such as: what is "torture" and what is not torture; the relative effectiveness of "torture" as an intell gathering device, etc. Yeah, I'd say he's an expert.

Garret
02-09-2014, 03:52 PM
Debatable. Such events would have given him at least an informed opinion on issues such as: what is "torture" and what is not torture; the relative effectiveness of "torture" as an intell gathering device, etc. Yeah, I'd say he's an expert.

Then why did he fight any sort of torture by the US for years & years & then make a 180 when offered the candidacy? That was a pretty obvious quid pro quo.

Sky Blue
02-09-2014, 04:17 PM
I don't know why. I suspect that whatever we were/are engaged in, it was nothing compared to what he endured, as he has continuing physical limitations from his experiences. I've seen no evidence of any of our detainees having suffered any of the techniques he endured. Either way, it does not minimize his qualifications on the subject.

But to further this discussion a bit: I, for example, consider waterboarding to be psychological "torture", even if partly physical in nature, and therefore qualitatively different than say, burning someone with a hot electrical wire or cutting off their fingers with pruning shears.

Accordingly, a debate can be had as to whether waterboarding is in fact torture, whereas the other described examples will brook no such discussion. They are torture under any definition.

So, in the end, there was extant gray area as cover for McCain, and he wisely understood that political absolutism will result in thwarted ambition in many cases. Even then, this was not why McCain lost the election.

And before we get too myopic here, I would personally rather be waterboarded (or burned and sheared, for that matter), than have a drone missile sent into my hut because my bro-in-law is on some list in Foggy Bottom. Just sayin.

Keith Wilson
02-09-2014, 04:57 PM
Accordingly, a debate can be had as to whether waterboarding is in fact torture . . . One can debate anything, but this point is beyond reasonable argument. 'Torture' has specific legal definitions, both in US law and in treaties which the US has signed and ratified, and thus have the force of law. Waterboarding is specifically designed to give the exact sensations of drowning, and will kill the person subjected to it if it goes on too long. If this isn't 'severe physical or mental pain or suffering" I don't know what the hell is. Why would one want to debate this point?

One example (source: 18 U.S. Code 2340 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340) )


(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

Further discussion. (http://waterboarding.org/torture_definition)

pefjr
02-09-2014, 05:18 PM
One can debate anything, but this point is beyond reasonable argument. 'Torture' has specific legal definitions, both in US law and in treaties which the US has signed and ratified, and thus have the force of law. Waterboarding is specifically designed to give the exact sensations of drowning, and will asphyxiate the person subjected to it if it goes on too long. If this isn't 'severe physical or mental pain or suffering" I don't know what the hell is. Why would one want to debate this point?





ROFL, couldn't help it. You giving out word definitions is hilarious after seeing your recent rants on any one that opposes the dem's free spending habits. Start small, nothing too taxing for you, start with Extortionist. Then we will give you another later.:d:d

Keith Wilson
02-09-2014, 05:32 PM
It's the law, dude. I didn't make it up. 'Extortion' was quite accurate. (Legal definition here. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion)) 'Nice little economy you've got here. Pity if something should happen to it.'

Sky Blue
02-09-2014, 06:24 PM
One can debate anything, but this point is beyond reasonable argument... If this isn't 'severe physical or mental pain or suffering" I don't know what the hell is. Why would one want to debate this point?


Keith, you are asking good questions. A few points.

1. One can debate "anything". Yes and no. Some things are beyond debate. For me, the fact that gravity is the force that binds the universe together is beyond debate. For you, examples might be: the fact that "weather is not climate," or that AWG exists.

2. Waterboarding is NOT severe physical or mental pain or suffering. My finger shear example is an example of severe physical pain, while showing the detainee a video of the same thing happening to his daughter is an example of mental (or psychological) pain.

These techniques (which are torture per se) are qualitatively different from waterboarding. So, necessarily, a debate may be had, in view of the laws you've cited. And indeed, that debate was had, ad infinitum, and it is not clear to me that it has been definitively resolved as of yet, nor that the practice has even been terminated among its practitioners.

3. Why would someone want to debate the point? Well, Keith, there are those that felt that the technique developed a lot of high value intel without leaving the subjectee with any lingering physical or mental toll. Indeed, there is no evidence of the same, as to any detainee upon which it has been employed (to my knowledge).

Inasmuch as that is true, practitioners might then want to obtain a legal memo from a Berkeley law professor that explicitly notes that the technique does not violate the laws you've cited. You might further want to ensure that the Republican nominee would not have his Justice Department prosecute anyone for employing the technique, and would further want to know if the nominee had any objections to its continued use in any event. Favorable replies to these questions might bring some support from entities that may have been concerned about the responses given the public stands and personal experiences of the individual to whom the questions were posed.

So yeah, there was a debate, and those are some reasons why one might want to have it.

Swinging this back to McCain. Keith, the vicissitudes of realpolitik sometimes prevent puppies, kisses, flowers and kumbayah handholding around the campfire. Your man's drone policy is an example of this.

But to heartily complain of a relatively mild EIT, in view of a drone policy that frequently and ADMITTEDLY kills numerous innocents, as well as the high value target, seems a bit much. And I haven't seen the Dems complain much about drones relative to the wild hysteria and navel gazing that occurred over the waterboarding issue. So they have no standing to complain of it.

Maybe Code Pink. They've been consistent and non-hypocritical.

John Smith
02-09-2014, 06:29 PM
Then why did he fight any sort of torture by the US for years & years & then make a 180 when offered the candidacy? That was a pretty obvious quid pro quo.

He had to hold positions in the primaries that needed to be held to get votes. He, too, could "shake the etch a sketch" in the general.

I believe this went further than he wanted it to, but if his positions weren't extremely to the right, he couldn't get the nomination. The voters he needed didn't want him to say what he believed, but what they wanted him to believe.

John Smith
02-09-2014, 06:30 PM
I don't know why. I suspect that whatever we were/are engaged in, it was nothing compared to what he endured, as he has continuing physical limitations from his experiences. I've seen no evidence of any of our detainees having suffered any of the techniques he endured. Either way, it does not minimize his qualifications on the subject.

But to further this discussion a bit: I, for example, consider waterboarding to be psychological "torture", even if partly physical in nature, and therefore qualitatively different than say, burning someone with a hot electrical wire or cutting off their fingers with pruning shears.

Accordingly, a debate can be had as to whether waterboarding is in fact torture, whereas the other described examples will brook no such discussion. They are torture under any definition.

So, in the end, there was extant gray area as cover for McCain, and he wisely understood that political absolutism will result in thwarted ambition in many cases. Even then, this was not why McCain lost the election.

And before we get too myopic here, I would personally rather be waterboarded (or burned and sheared, for that matter), than have a drone missile sent into my hut because my bro-in-law is on some list in Foggy Bottom. Just sayin.
Didn't Sean Hannity once say he would get water-boarded himself in order to form an informed opinion?

John Smith
02-09-2014, 06:31 PM
ROFL, couldn't help it. You giving out word definitions is hilarious after seeing your recent rants on any one that opposes the dem's free spending habits. Start small, nothing too taxing for you, start with Extortionist. Then we will give you another later.:d:d

Why is it deficits go up under Republicans and down under Democrats? Then again, why are you changing the subject?

John Smith
02-09-2014, 06:39 PM
Keith, you are asking good questions. A few points.

1. One can debate "anything". Yes and no. Some things are beyond debate. For me, the fact that gravity is the force that binds the universe together is beyond debate. For you, examples might be: the fact that "weather is not climate," or that AWG exists.

2. Waterboarding is NOT severe physical or mental pain or suffering. My finger shear example is an example of severe physical pain, while showing the detainee a video of the same thing happening to his daughter is an example of mental (or psychological) pain.

These techniques (which are torture per se) are qualitatively different from waterboarding. So, necessarily, a debate may be had, in view of the laws you've cited. And indeed, that debate was had, ad infinitum, and it is not clear to me that it has been definitively resolved as of yet, nor that the practice has even been terminated among its practitioners.

3. Why would someone want to debate the point? Well, Keith, there are those that felt that the technique developed a lot of high value intel without leaving the subjectee with any lingering physical or mental toll. Indeed, there is no evidence of the same, as to any detainee upon which it has been employed (to my knowledge).

Inasmuch as that is true, practitioners might then want to obtain a legal memo from a Berkeley law professor that explicitly notes that the technique does not violate the laws you've cited. You might further want to ensure that the Republican nominee would not have his Justice Department prosecute anyone for employing the technique, and would further want to know if the nominee had any objections to its continued use in any event. Favorable replies to these questions might bring some support from entities that may have been concerned about the responses given the public stands and personal experiences of the individual to whom the questions were posed.

So yeah, there was a debate, and those are some reasons why one might want to have it.

Swinging this back to McCain. Keith, the vicissitudes of realpolitik sometimes prevent puppies, kisses, flowers and kumbayah handholding around the campfire. Your man's drone policy is an example of this.

But to heartily complain of a relatively mild EIT, in view of a drone policy that frequently and ADMITTEDLY kills numerous innocents, as well as the high value target, seems a bit much. And I haven't seen the Dems complain much about drones relative to the wild hysteria and navel gazing that occurred over the waterboarding issue. So they have no standing to complain of it.

Maybe Code Pink. They've been consistent and non-hypocritical.

The first truth is that in spite of Cheney's spin to the opposite, we got no accurate, usable data from Water-boarding.

Those who don't think it is torture might want to try it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1q-IqLLMZ4

John Smith
02-09-2014, 06:40 PM
[video=youtube;od0Zo9h4mVo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od0Zo9h4mVo

Sky Blue
02-09-2014, 07:08 PM
John, I get it. I get that you think it is torture. Do concede that is your interpretation. And if a federal judge agrees with you after a litigated case, then I will respect the law and agree as well. Maybe that has already happened, don't know. Right now, it seems that folks are a little more concerned with Holder's notion that is OK to zap American citizens with drones even though there is something out there about not being deprived of one's life (liberty or property) without due process of law...

But let's not get bogged down in details...

pefjr
02-09-2014, 07:14 PM
Why is it deficits go up under Republicans and down under Democrats? Then again, why are you changing the subject?I was on the subject. Keith teaching word definition. Hilarious stuff. I know you and the boys want to harp on torture again,....and again... and again. I have one thing to say about waterboarding, not one innocent child or mother got even tickled by waterboarding, while thousands have been murdered by drones. So go ahead and harp all day long about Cheney and waterboarding, etc. It shows your partisan blindness, and is why I asked you if you can read braille.

Keith Wilson
02-09-2014, 07:28 PM
Waterboarding is NOT severe physical or mental pain or sufferingNo? Why was it used for coercion? Torture lite? Almost torture but not quite? A technique we can claim isn't legally torture, but has the same effect? Sorry, but this is incredibly disingenuous. Given that the victim will indeed die in a minute or two if those doing it just stand there and do nothing, and the victim has no idea what will happen, it's pretty obvious it comes under 'the threat of imminent death', prohibited as torture by US law. "Relatively mild EIT' is an absolutely astounding way to describe bringing a person repeatedly to the very edge of death by asphyxiation.

Now, drones. Let us be clear here, and call the program what it is - targeted assassinations. Missiles fired from drones are only a convenient method, and the drone itself is irrelevant. It could just as well be a missile fired from a helicopter, a piloted airplane, a submarine, or by a soldier in the next valley over; the effects would be exactly the same.

Whether one agrees with the concept of the US conducting assassinations as a matter of policy or not, the proper comparison is not with waterboarding to extract information, but with the preferred policy of the previous administration for dealing with the threat of Islamist terrorists, invasion and occupation of whole countries by large-scale military forces. I would say that it's far preferable to invading the wrong country by mistake. I think whether it's a good idea depends on the genuine danger posed by the victim, and the accuracy of the targeting. The devil's in the details. Assassinating some people (not many) may be justified. Doing it in ham-handed way could case more harm than good.

And the 'standing' argument is silly. A stupid or evil policy is still stupid or evil, whether or not I complain about every other stupid or evil policy. Reversing the argument, anyone who supported the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan but complains about assassinations using missiles fired from drones, at the very least lacks much sense of proportion.

pefjr
02-09-2014, 07:55 PM
No? Why was it used for coercion? Torture lite? Almost torture but not quite? A technique we can claim isn't legally torture, but has the same effect? Sorry, but this is incredibly disingenuous. Given that the victim will indeed die in a minute or two if those doing it just stand there and do nothing, and the victim has no idea what will happen, it's pretty obvious it comes under 'the threat of imminent death', prohibited as torture by US law. "Relatively mild EIT' is an absolutely astounding way to describe bringing a person repeatedly to the very edge of death by asphyxiation.

Now, drones. Let us be clear here, and call the program what it is - targeted assassinations. Missiles fired from drones is only a convenient method, and the drone itself is irrelevant. It could just as well be a missile fired from a helicopter, a piloted airplane, a submarine, or by a soldier in the next valley over; the effects would be exactly the same.

Whether one agrees with the concept of the US conducting assassinations as a matter of policy or not, the proper comparison is not with waterboarding to extract information, but with the preferred policy of the previous administration for dealing with the threat of Islamist terrorists, invasion and occupation of whole countries by large-scale military forces. I would say that it's far preferable to invading the wrong country by mistake. I think whether it's a good idea depends on the genuine danger posed by the victim, and the accuracy of the targeting. The devil's in the details. Assassinating some people (not many) may be justified. Doing it in ham-handed way could case more harm than good.

And the 'standing' argument is silly. A stupid or evil policy is still stupid or evil, whether or not I complain about every other stupid or evil policy. Reversing the argument, anyone who supported the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan but complains about assassinations using missiles fired from drones, at the very least lacks much sense of proportion.
I don't attempt to justify waterboarding, but given the choice to try and accomplish certain goals, and knowingly save American lives, I would use waterboarding, and other options instead of breaking International Law and killing innocents. I certainly would never repeat drones after killing innocents, I certainly would not do the dirty work of some Pakistani General and kill innocents, I certainly would not ever try and justify drones, by changing the definitions. It lawless pre-meditated murder.....period. We are guilty, and our Allies are guilty for condoning it. Our integrity is shot, and to hear Kerry now on two occasions in one week preach to others about the necessity of having International Law is embarrassing. Just like you can not give word definition lessons, Kerry cannot represent the US and preach about having International Law. Please.......

Ian McColgin
02-09-2014, 08:10 PM
It's nice that we are all agreed that assassination is not nice and many agree that waterboarding is not nice either but the topic is fraudulent sites designed to suborn our electoral system. I have yet to see any of our righties claiming that the Republican Party setting up these sites was even remotely ethical. Best they have done is a false comparison of their half dozen or so party organized sites with the actions of a Libertarian. And that's why they change the topic.