Change you were dumb enough to believe in
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 21:45
VIEWED: 9196
PAGE 9 of 14
Jongsstraw, I just see it all, everything, all the policies, as an immense and very disquieting power grab. Doesn't matter whether the justification is the economy or national security, the end result is the same: more government control.
Corporations already have a worrisome amount of government protection, so much that I already think that the government and corporations are all really one and the same. But actually seeing the government SEIZING corporations, that just cements it all the more for me, because if they weren't the government's before, they probably are now.
The expansion of powers of the executive office of the United States, whether in the economic or national sector are a run away freight train. These are powers that will not be relinquished once granted (is a power granted if you're giving it to yourself?). We're slowly installing a totalitarian dictatorship.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Jongsstraw, I just see it all, everything, all the policies, as an immense and very disquieting power grab. Doesn't matter whether the justification is the economy or national security, the end result is the same: more government control.
Corporations already have a worrisome amount of government protection, so much that I already think that the government and corporations are all really one and the same. But actually seeing the government SEIZING corporations, that just cements it all the more for me, because if they weren't the government's before, they probably are now.
The expansion of powers of the executive office of the United States, whether in the economic or national sector are a run away freight train. These are powers that will not be relinquished once granted (is a power granted if you're giving it to yourself?). We're slowly installing a totalitarian dictatorship.
Good thoughtful post there Bytemite. I understand your concerns about Obama, because as most (or some) here know, I'm fairly hard-core to the Right. But I had decided after the election not to continue the endless political posturing that is going on every day now. I didn't like it when Bush was President, and I don't like it now. For all the Obama-bashing that someone like Hannity does every day, what good does any of it do? He goes home to his mansion and limosine, and us common folk are left from the show all worked up with nothing to do about anything. Jeeesh, you watch him, or listen to Rush and you'd think the world was over. Well guess what? It's not. My toes are tappin' and life is still good.
Now, as for corporate takeovers by the Government.....
These "people" deserve it. The crooks and cheats and greedy bastards that committed fraud against the USA with their worthless Fannie-Mae bundles all deserve to be in prison. Since that doesn't seem likely to happen now, I think it's reasonable for the Govt. to have a stake in their recovery especially since it's US tax dollars paying the deadbeat bills. It's not like the whole of capitalism is being overrun into socialism; it's just fixing what needs to be fixed, and the only one with that kind of dough is the Govt. Obama ran on a traditional Dem. platform of big govt. No one should be surprised that healthcare, energy, environment, etc are being expanded and funded according to Obama's tastes. Wall Street seems pretty content these days to accept the Govt takeovers that have already occurred. I just don't see it as a problem. In fact it may be the only solution until America and the world can trust US businesses again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I actually do hope Obama's economic policies work. And his social program policies.
If our economy collapsed, right now, and we went into a period like the great depression, I don't think many Americans have the mindset to survive and recover from that anymore. I think if it was really bad, we could be looking at systemic collapse.
And as much as I desperately want to see a different system and a different form of government, I don't want it to come about through the suffering of others.
That's why I also hope Obama's social programs work too. I support better education, and people being concerned about the environment even if it's just for the sake of their health, and if health care could be reformed so that it actually takes care of the people who need it, while costing less, hey, I'd support that too. I mean, these are all important issues, and while I don't know if any of the related policies will be effective, it's also important that we be looking for solutions.
But I'm also not about to sign my life over to the government, even if in exchange for my rights and privacy, I get perfect health care, education, and a stable economy. That's how a dystopia is born.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:'Rap, you say there was NO torture, there WERE WMD... you talk about "facts", and make fun of those arguments you all too easily lose to on a regular basis due to your partisan hard-wiring.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And there's no torture
if you dealt in the facts
a complete farce.
You are so a dope, seriously.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And there's no torture, so why do you continue to misrepresent the issue in that manner ?
Because the Red Cross, the Geneva Convention, and all manner of international treaty - as well as our own record or prosecutions for those who engage these tactics against us - say that it IS torture. Calling it cute euphamisms in an effort to wash the stain of horror off your conscience is all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that waterboarding IS torture.
The fact that Eric Holder is a fucking idiot doesn't change that fact, either.
You can call it "enhanced interrogation"; you can call it "involuntary swimming" like Hero does; you can call it "a harmless fraternity prank"; it doesn't change the fact that it is torture.
You have no case. You never did, and you never will.
People like you would dismiss the Holocaust as just a few bad German apples applying "an aggressive diet" to the Jews by starving them to death, or using "enhanced workouts" to work them to death, or "aggressive cleaning" to excuse putting them in "the showers". It's torture. Always has been, always will be.
You want me to prove it? Give me a waterboard and Dick Cheney, and within five minutes I'll have him admit that he's being tortured.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Mike. That is at once hi-larious and sobering.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You want me to prove it? Give me a waterboard and Dick Cheney, and within five minutes I'll have him admit that he's being tortured.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Cheney is undeniably credible on enhanced interrogation. The law has spoken on that very matter.
How so? How is he "credible"? Because he ordered the enhanced interrogation? Does he have a torture background that makes him some sort of expert?
Mike
First of all, who the hell is Cheney? Was he Commander in Chief ? Hell no, that was Bush. Where are you getting this view that CHENEY, and Cheney alone was in charge of what went on in Gitmo, and not Bush ?
Our own Navy Seals go through water boarding, in survival training, so to call this 'torture' is a complete misnomer and mis characterization of the enhanced interrogation practices.
Eric Holder, Obama's A.G., even says as much.......
Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —
Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
Holder: Intent is a huge part.
Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?
Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at... ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture.
... Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, continued the “intent” line of questioning in an attempt to make some sense of the attorney general’s tortured logic.
Rep. Louie Gohmert: Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent. If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct?
Attorney General Eric Holder: No, not at all. Intent is a fact question, it’s a fact specific question.
Gohmert: So what kind of intent were you talking about?
Holder: Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act? Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person?
Gohmert: I said that in my question. The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm — there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm — knew that for sure. So, is the intent, are you saying it’s in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured. Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he’s doing harm.
Holder: The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances. That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.
. End of discussion.
The above reminds me of a saying my grandmother was fond of: {Insert name} wouldn't say sh*t if he had a mouthful of it.
What's the intent? Apparently to have a spade called anything but a spade.
W W S W D ?
What would Slick Willie do?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I said I would be checking in from time to time and posting a lot less. I leave for a week and check in today, and here Hero is, making shit up, which is pretty typical of the right-wing morons here. Maybe you should learn to read.
I said that in the late 1990s lenders were forced to give loans with relaxed restrictions for income, credit history, ability to pay, and down payment.
You all said "CITATIONS!"
So I said its common knowledge, but ok, here's a couple citations that I can find in thirty seconds worth of Google.
Your response, "LIES!" "WRONG!" and "OH NO HE DIDNT!".
So prove me wrong. Citations please. I showed you a couple of mine. You show me yours.
Heck, I could show you yours. You can trace this problem easily back into the Bush years and the failure of both Bush administration and Congressional oversite to stem a problem that many people were warning about. Fine.
But the problem didn't just appear out of thin air. We didn't wake up last August with a credit problem. When did it start. It started with the lending rule changes in the late 1990s. It continued into the Bush administration, past a President beset with more immediate problems and a Congress whose Democratic members, including a future President, were well compensated by the lending industry to keep this issue quiet.
You claim I'm lying, I had citations, you had none. I win and your just a Bush-hating crazytalker who'd deny the sky was blue to make a Republican look bad. Prove me wrong.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Does he have a torture background that makes him some sort of expert?
He does now...I'm just sayin...
His credibility was shot, but an interesting thing happened. He made his case.
I've seen this happen in court. Witness should be bad, unsympathetic, etc. But they get up there, they say what happened and yes, they have a bad reputation or a reason to lie...but they make their case and its compelling.
In this case Obama had the high ground and then gave Cheney an opening by NOT releasing the whole story. That allowed Cheney to take the high ground by calling him on the omission and then, once he had our attention, making the case both for the specific use of these methods in these three particular cases AND the larger point of showing Obama weak on security for effectively tying the hands of the CIA. Should there be another attack, the question will be 'could we have stopped it?"
And if a Gitmo person gets released somewhere in the US and kills somebody...its game over for the Democrats. Obama needs to get out of the corner and Cheney's ratings can only go up, which is what and why they are doing just that.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
Also
"Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture"
www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Mancow-Takes-on-Waterboarding-and-Loses.
html
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME