Change you were dumb enough to believe in
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 21:45
VIEWED: 9196
PAGE 7 of 14
Liar.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
kpo - if Cheney is a liar, then so are Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, George Tenet, and countless others.
So, why are you focusing in on Cheney again?
They ARE all liars. They're politicians.
We just keep talking about Cheney and Bush because you keep bringing them up.
Lemee put it this way. I think global warming and climate change is a real problem that people need to figure out how to fix (being as how I'm an Environmental Scientist and I see the same trends a lot of other Environmental Scientists are seeing).
But I ALSO know for a FACT that Al Gore had an AGENDA when he came out with his movie. I don't trust Al Gore. Because he is a politician.
See, I don't trust any politician. I have my own opinions on issues. Sometimes, those opinions even agree with the stated position of a particular politicians platform.
But do I believe the politician actually CARES about that issue? No.
Do I believe politicians genuinely care about their constituents, apart from their vote? No.
Do I believe a politician will act in any other way than what is best for their votes, lobbyists, or the overt AND hidden agenda of their respective party? No.
Do I believe that politician is more informed than me because they are an elected public official? No.
Do I believe any politician is immune to corruption? No, in fact I think all of them HAVE to be corrupt to become politicians. They have to know how to play the system.
Do they warrant my respect automatically because they are an elected public official? No, they have to EARN it, and when they do, they can be DAMNED quick to lose it too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
AuRaptor wrote:
I couldn't help but notice that my question to Kwickie went unanswered.
What question? The one you quoted above, which you addressed to KPO? Was that one that I was supposed to answer? Should I have *clearly* known that you meant me when you addressed it to someone else?
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:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
AuRaptor wrote:
I couldn't help but notice that my question to Kwickie went unanswered.
What question? The one you quoted above, which you addressed to KPO? Was that one that I was supposed to answer? Should I have *clearly* known that you meant me when you addressed it to someone else?
Mike]
kwickie
Cite 1 lie that Cheney's said.
Just one.
Nice dodge. You flatly stated that Cheney lied. I asked - where ? You opted to not answer, nor have you stated why you focus only on Cheney, if all those others " lied " about WMD.
The T.Rex they call JANE!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
AuRaptor wrote:
I couldn't help but notice that my question to Kwickie went unanswered.
What question? The one you quoted above, which you addressed to KPO? Was that one that I was supposed to answer? Should I have *clearly* known that you meant me when you addressed it to someone else?
Mike]
kwickie
Cite 1 lie that Cheney's said.
Just one.
Nice dodge. You flatly stated that Cheney lied. I asked - where ? You opted to not answer, nor have you stated why you focus only on Cheney, if all those others " lied " about WMD.
Asked and answered. Did you miss it, or were you just not able to comprehend it? I say Cheney lied, you say he was "wrong".
If it seems to you that I'm focusing only on Cheney, then part of that may be that he and Rush seem to be the new face of your party, so that tends to command some attention. Also, he's trying to portray himself as "credible" on torture, among other things, when he's been shown to be anything BUT credible - about ANYTHING.
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
Cheney is undeniably credible on enhanced interrogation. The law has spoken on that very matter.
You have no case.
The T.Rex they call JANE!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If Cheney had been told he was wrong about the WMD thing, but distributed the information anyway, would that be considered lying?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 torture? Does he have a torture background that makes him some sort of expert?
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
And somehow... they still have 80% of us fighting with each other.
Sad.
WAKE UP IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!
Divided we fall....
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 T.Rex they call JANE!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME