DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 251 - 275 of 367, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/16/2005 06:38:09 PM · #251
1. Have any of the detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay had any tribunals to determine what their status is? If not, why such a long wait? We are talking 2-3 years after their capture. Some at Guantanamo Bay have been released after years of detention with no charges.

2. The way that I interpret the paragraph from article 2 of the GCs that I quoted is that since the US is party to the convention they are bound by its laws. Doesn't matter if al Qaeda accepts the provisions of the GCs.

3. Who is the offically designated interpreter of the GCs? A year ago the International Red Cross found violations of international humanitarian law at Abu Ghraib and found that many of the detainees there innocent citizens. Is George Bush or Alberto Gonzales any more an authority on interpreting the GC than Human Rights Watch or the IRC?

4. A rhetorical question: Why did the Bush administration refuse to join the International Criminal Court? If you, and the administration are so sure of their sound policies and actions, what have they to fear by joining?

5. Glad to hear you don't condone torture, but it sure sounds to me that what occurred at Abu Ghraib was torture as defined by the GC. Physical and psychological torture techniques were used there and elsewhere.

6. You believe that the policy decisions for torture were strictly limited to American military and civilian commands, even knowing about the Alberto Gonzales memos?

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

From Human Rights Watch
"The Geneva Conventions should apply to both Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees being held by U.S. forces at Guantanamo and in Afghanistan, even if ultimately the al-Qaeda fighters would likely not be accorded POW status, Human Rights Watch said. The Conventions provide explicit protections to all combatants captured in an international armed conflict, even if they are deemed to be unprivileged combatants not entitled to POW status."

From Article 2 of the Third Geneva Convention:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Also from Human Righs Watch
"The Geneva Conventions presume that a captured combatant is a prisoner of war, unless a competent tribunal determines otherwise on a case by case basis."

MY note: Have their been any tribunals to determine POW from non-POW?
I would hope you, as a military man, would strongly condemn the use of torture for any detainees or other prisoners the US takes,for what it could mean for our own armed service men and women who are captured in the line of duty. This does not seem to be a problem of just the enlisted man or woman, but goes to the highest offices of power in the US government, as reported by Seymour Hirsch of the New Yorker Magazine.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The Geneva Conventions do apply to all combatants in an international armed conflict, even terrorists, and the fact that the US has taken military action in countries they believe to be associated with terrorists, rather than more traditional legal means, indicates that the Geneva Conventions apply to those POws. In cases where POW status is in doubt a competent tribunal needs to determine their status, not military tribunals, as has been found by a US court.


Technically, you are wrong on several points.
1) The Geneva Conventions do not apply to combatants at all
2) There are actually four Geneva Conventions, the first is related to treatment of battlefield casualties, the second is related to casualties at sea, the third ( the one we are talking about ) is related to Prisoners of War, and the fourth is ralated to civilians during wartime
3) the word 'terrorist' is never mentioned in the third Geneva Conventions

The only point you make that is even close to being correct is that when in doubt a determination should be made by a tribunal, a point which I also made. The wording in the Conventions, in fact, is as follows:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Note that the Conventions do not specify the the "competent tribunal" cannot be a military tribunal as you have stated. The federal court ruling you refer to is not the final word since The US Supreme Court has only just accepted the case for review.

Can you post an excerpt from the third Geneva Conventions ( or any other, for that matter ) that would support your contention that Geneva Conventions apply to combatants in general, and terrorists specifically?


First of all "Human Rights Watch" is not the officially designated interpreter of the Geneva Conventions. They are no more official than am I. They seem to acknowledge it even if you do not - as stated in their own website, "Human Rights Watch is an independent, nongovernmental organization, supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide." Therefore, just because they say it, does not make it so.

Secondly, in accordance with Article 2, when did the Iraq terrorists "accept and applie the provisions thereof"? I must have missed that bit of news.

Third, in answer to your question, I would, indeed, strongly condemn the use of torture for any detainees or other prisoners the US takes. But I would not use the word "torture" to describe MUCH of what occurred at Abu Ghraib. Some crossed the line, yes, and the guilty are being brought to trial for their breaches.

Fourth, not even Seymour Hersh says that there was DIRECT involvement "at the highest levels". What he says is that that the torture and sexual humiliation inflicted on Iraqi detainees were the result of policy decisions made at the highest levels of the American military and civilian command. There IS a difference, though it may be difficult for liberals to see.
02/16/2005 06:44:23 PM · #252
Originally posted by bdobe:

As posted earlier, the "Jeff Gannon" (his real name is James Guckert) Male prostitute/Conservative plant in Bush's White House begs the following question (from this NY Observer article) :

"Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville. Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart -- or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this "journalist" had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal.

Then imagine the constant screaming on radio, on television, on Capitol Hill, in the Washington press corps -- and listen to the placid mumbling of the "liberal" media now."

And this from earlier in the same article:

"The intrinsic media interest of the Guckert/Gannon story should be obvious to anyone who has followed his tale, which touches on hot topics from the homosexual underground and the investigation into the outing of C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame to the political power of the Internet. But our supposedly liberal media becomes quite squeamish when reporting anything that might humiliate the Bush White House and the Republican Party."

[...]

"What Mr. Guckert seems to have been is not a journalist but a Republican dirty trickster. He was schooled at the Leadership Institute -- an outfit run by veteran right-wing operative and Republican National Committee member Morton Blackwell. (It was Mr. Blackwell who distributed those cute "purple heart" Band-aids mocking Mr. Kerry’s war wounds at the Republican convention last summer.) His former employers at Talon News include leading Republican fund-raisers and former officials of the Texas Republican Party who have been active in partisan affairs for the past two decades."

"How did this character obtain a coveted place in the White House? What did the White House press staff know about him? How does his story fit within the larger scandal of payola punditry, with federal funds subsidizing Republican propagandists in the press corps? Did someone in the Bush administration give him a classified document?"


My, my, my! And all this time I thought Liberals were pro-Gay rights. Now their true feelings are surfacing. It seems that their condemnation against Gannon/Guckert is equally divided between his political leanings and training and his sexual lifestyle. To me, that smacks of hypocracy.
02/16/2005 07:19:22 PM · #253
Originally posted by RonB:

My, my, my! And all this time I thought Liberals were pro-Gay rights. Now their true feelings are surfacing. It seems that their condemnation against Gannon/Guckert is equally divided between his political leanings and training and his sexual lifestyle. To me, that smacks of hypocracy.


I have a feeling I'm going to regret entering this fray, but, RonB, aren't you, in your most recent post, sidestepping the issue? The issue is how did this purported journalist, using a pseudonym, gain admittance the White House press pool? Nothing that can reasonably be inferred in the NY Observer article you second-handedly quoted implies a condemnation of Guckert's/Gannon's sexual preferences and, by stating that it does, aren't you attempting to divert attention from the issue at hand: is it proper for a journalist to have access to the President of the United States using a false name? Is it ethical from the perspective of the President Press Secretary who must at least been aware of Mr. Gannon/Guckert's deception?

Like I said, I'm sure I'll live to regret posting on this thread.
02/16/2005 08:41:36 PM · #254
Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by RonB:

My, my, my! And all this time I thought Liberals were pro-Gay rights. Now their true feelings are surfacing. It seems that their condemnation against Gannon/Guckert is equally divided between his political leanings and training and his sexual lifestyle. To me, that smacks of hypocracy.


I have a feeling I'm going to regret entering this fray, but, RonB, aren't you, in your most recent post, sidestepping the issue? The issue is how did this purported journalist, using a pseudonym, gain admittance the White House press pool? Nothing that can reasonably be inferred in the NY Observer article you second-handedly quoted implies a condemnation of Guckert's/Gannon's sexual preferences and, by stating that it does, aren't you attempting to divert attention from the issue at hand: is it proper for a journalist to have access to the President of the United States using a false name? Is it ethical from the perspective of the President Press Secretary who must at least been aware of Mr. Gannon/Guckert's deception?

Like I said, I'm sure I'll live to regret posting on this thread.


Good observation, and a common situation here.
02/17/2005 09:38:28 AM · #255
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

1. Have any of the detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay had any tribunals to determine what their status is? If not, why such a long wait? We are talking 2-3 years after their capture. Some at Guantanamo Bay have been released after years of detention with no charges.

Actually, yes - 558 in fact. But one federal judge ruled that they were not in compliance with the US Supreme Court's earlier ruling on detainee rights. That ruling ( the judge's not the Supreme Courts' ) is under appeal.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

2. The way that I interpret the paragraph from article 2 of the GCs that I quoted is that since the US is party to the convention they are bound by its laws. Doesn't matter if al Qaeda accepts the provisions of the GCs.

Actually, it does to the extent that if al Qaeda DID accept the provisions of the GCs their combatants would be readily identifiable - e.g. establish a hierarchy of command, wear visible insignia, carry arms openly, etc. Then there would be no question of their status under the Geneva Conventions and no tribunals would be necessary.
As it is, the US IS bound by the Geneva Conventions, as you say, but the question is whether the detainees are entitled to treatment prescribed by the Conventions - hence the need for tribunals.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

3. Who is the offically designated interpreter of the GCs? A year ago the International Red Cross found violations of international humanitarian law at Abu Ghraib and found that many of the detainees there innocent citizens. Is George Bush or Alberto Gonzales any more an authority on interpreting the GC than Human Rights Watch or the IRC?

a) I don't know. Lacking direct assignment I would assume that a tribunal consisting of representatives of the signatories to the Conventions would be the only way to determine whether there had been compliance or not.
b) Not that I know of. Though I think that Rumsfeld might be, since that's his job responsibility.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

4. A rhetorical question: Why did the Bush administration refuse to join the International Criminal Court? If you, and the administration are so sure of their sound policies and actions, what have they to fear by joining?

Because it would enable any political entity in any signatory country to bring charges against US citizens. It wouldn't matter whether the charges were true or not. The fear is that by joining, the result would be to tie up our leaders in endless court battles - effectively preventing them from concentrating on their responsibilities.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

5. Glad to hear you don't condone torture, but it sure sounds to me that what occurred at Abu Ghraib was torture as defined by the GC. Physical and psychological torture techniques were used there and elsewhere.

SOME of what occurred at Abu Ghraib and at Guantanamo are clearly violations of the Geneva Conventions. Specifically physical abuse and "humiliating and degrading treatment". But the Conventions do not prohibit the use of psychological techniques that do not rise to the level of "humiliating and degrading treatment". For example, sleep depravation, bright lights, constant noise, etc. that do not result in physical damage ( e.g. noise so loud it results in permanent hearing loss ).

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

6. You believe that the policy decisions for torture were strictly limited to American military and civilian commands, even knowing about the Alberto Gonzales memos?

The question, to me, is ambiguous. Are you asking if I believe that the policy decisions were applied to non-American military or civilian commands? Which specific elements of the Gonzales memos are you referring to?
02/17/2005 10:12:34 AM · #256
Edit:some spelling errors.

RonB, why even respond to these people? If I were you, I'd contact a lawyer about bdobe's site. I believe it is plagarism to use your quotes with out permission. He is stealing from the dpChallenge site.

Libs will never let the US have any victory on any issue as long as a Republican is in office. Let a Dem win and every tiniest accomplishment anywhere will be hailed. Never in all their arguments do they mention the increase of women's rights now in Iraq or the schools that are now open.

They will say Iraq had no ties to 9/11. Yet Al Quada is in Iraq now and documentation has been found linking Al Queda to Saddam. No connection. Yet then they throw up the Rumsfield picture which connects us to Saddam permently. And once again, all bad is the US's fault.

Guantanamo Bay and the Geneva Convention. What does the GC say about sawing off heads?

I can sum up the libs in this way: Your entire belief is centered around the fact that someone has more than you. You feel you are entitled to it and you want to use Government as a means to get it.

You don't care about this war. You are upset because you hate the military and this war is taking away for you obtaining your goal of getting what others have. Spending is going to the military rather than to your precious social programs. You don't care about the prisoners and you don't care about the so called 'lies'. Where were you with Kosovo? Where were you when Clinton bombed the Sudan while lying on the stand? You just can't bear to see the US in a good light or bare to have the current administration have an victory. Your goals are the same as the insurgents. You just persue it in a different way. And you wonder why people are fleeing your party...

Message edited by author 2005-02-17 10:58:19.
02/17/2005 10:54:52 AM · #257
Originally posted by bbower1956:

RonB, why even respond to these people? If I were you, I'd contact a lawyer about bdobe's site. I believe it is plagarism to use your quotes with out permission. He is stealing from the dpChallenge site.

I respond because failure to do so would leave their lies on the table uncontested. And statements that remain uncontested are too often viewed by the uninformed as truth ( it must be true if no one can refute it, no? ).
Since bdobe credits the quotations to my screen-name, and to the site from which they were lifted, it doesn't technically qualify as plagiarism. It may be morally reprehensible, but I don't think that it's illegal. What does concern me is that he got away with saying that I was lying, and that I lacked intellectual integrity. I reported his post to the site council and they did nothing to correct his libelous personal attack even though it was a clear violation of the Terms of Service for this site. I believe that his use of my posts on his site are also a violation, but, again, the SC didn't see it that way. I "outed" him so that others would be warned that their postings could also end up on his site.
Mind you, his personal attack on me does rise to the level of libel, and is in violation of the law. But I have better things to do than pursue legal remedy. It's enough for me to know that others are aware of his tactics.

( editted four speling )

Message edited by author 2005-02-17 11:02:18.
02/17/2005 11:05:14 AM · #258
You can't expect the illogical to except logic. I am a convert from their camp but it took courage to read a book called "The Way Things Ought To Be".

I then became self-employed and made great money that the libs on this site no doubt felt entitled to. And why shouldn't they? After all, they did nothing for it and took none of the risk. Why shouldn't they get 34% of it for sitting at home and watching Oprah?

Once you are raped by the government at tax time for being self-employed, you will never vote for a tax and spend politican again.
02/17/2005 12:30:35 PM · #259
BBower1956 and RonB, you two are comical in your accusations and paranoia about my blog -- clicks from DPChallenge to the page that Ron linked to now represents over 50% of the visits to my blog for this month (thanks for the traffic).

As for the threat of a lawsuit, any judge presented with the case would outright laugh -- specially when the evidence is put before the court.

I think that what RonB did is egregiously misleading: he lifted a quote from an article that purportedly supported his position; all the while, RonB omitted at least six statements from the same article that directly contradicted RonB's assertion. Such slight of hand, I think any reasonable person would agree, is dishonest and, therefore, not libelous.

Oh, I guess I was under the wrong impression that those in your camp were against "frivolous lawsuits," and it would seem to me that a suit over a web forum posting certainly qualifies as "frivolous."

Moreover, BBower1956, is what you addressed to me here libelous?

Originally posted by bbower1956:

Right. Contempt. I am not the one trying to undermine what the troops are trying to accomplish. Your views are lock step with the insurgents. That is what is truly disgusting about you. By listing the casulaty count, you are celebrating that number. Secretly, you want it to increase to a 'more impressive number' so you "can bring the troops home". That sacrifice to you is more noble then the sacrifice of being successful in their mission. I know, insert your WMD crap here. Missions change in war. You should know that marine. We did not set out to liberate the Jews in WWII but rather to help our allies. It was a side benefit.

The left 'celebrated' the death of the 1000 serviceman in Iraq. The looked at that number as a weapon they could use to defeat Bush. It is tragic that that many have died. But to overlook the fact that we were expected to lose that many the first day of battle and not see it as a great victory is idiotic.

You would rather our troops fail to give people hope at freedom so that you can advance your own political agenda. It is you who have contempt for the Iraqi people and the military.


I specially like the often used and limp line of attack that conservative right wingers always resort to: accuse critics of sympathizing with the terrorists -- this is pathetic.

Finally, I did not report your calumnious post to the site council or anyone else; because, unlike you two, I can take criticism and, too, I'm a strong supporter of a person's 1st amendment right to make a fool of themselves.
02/17/2005 12:39:02 PM · #260
Originally posted by bbower1956:


I can sum up the libs in this way: Your entire belief is centered around the fact that someone has more than you. You feel you are entitled to it and you want to use Government as a means to get it.


That is incredible nonsense. Have you been reading Anne Coulter?
02/17/2005 02:13:14 PM · #261
CIA Head: Iraq Policy Is Fueling Islamic Resentment
In his first public comments as CIA Director Porter Goss has admitted that the Bush administration's policies in the Middle East are fueling Islamic resentment and are helping anti-American terrorists recruit new members. Goss said "These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."

From DemocracyNow
02/17/2005 02:18:39 PM · #262
Oh my,,,,,,,,,the joys of politics.

Ray.
02/17/2005 02:21:55 PM · #263
Liberal views ARE lock step with the insurgents. You have put forth no arguments to the contray. Even your fellow libs are starting to admit it as is evident here:

//www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/columns/imperialcity/11076/index.html

I don't need to read Ann Coulter to know the liberal mindset.
02/17/2005 02:24:19 PM · #264
Originally posted by bdobe:

BBower1956 and RonB, you two are comical in your accusations and paranoia about my blog -- clicks from DPChallenge to the page that Ron linked to now represents over 50% of the visits to my blog for this month (thanks for the traffic).

As for the threat of a lawsuit, any judge presented with the case would outright laugh -- specially when the evidence is put before the court.

I think that what RonB did is egregiously misleading: he lifted a quote from an article that purportedly supported his position; all the while, RonB omitted at least six statements from the same article that directly contradicted RonB's assertion. Such slight of hand, I think any reasonable person would agree, is dishonest and, therefore, not libelous.


You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word "libel". Try to understand this definition: "1.a. A false publication in writing, printing, or typewriting or in signs or pictures that maliciously damages a person's reputation. b. The act or an instance of presenting such a statement to the public."

You said: "You're intentionally misrepresenting, rather, lying, about what the July 9, 2003, BBC article actually says".

I was NOT "lying". You can say that I omitted 99% of the article, but that doesn't rise to the level of "lying". I quoted portions of the article truthfully and accurately, even according to your own admission above, to wit: "he lifted a quote from an article that purportedly supported his position". Hence, you are guilty of libel against me - the act of presenting a false statement that maliciously damages my reputation.

By the way, I have no fear of increasing traffic to your web site - just as I have no fear of AirAmerica, which, unlike the Limbaugh's and Hannity's of conservative talk radio, has to actually PAY stations to carry talk shows for the liberals. The more people that see what liberals have to offer, the better.
02/17/2005 02:24:52 PM · #265
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

CIA Head: Iraq Policy Is Fueling Islamic Resentment
In his first public comments as CIA Director Porter Goss has admitted that the Bush administration's policies in the Middle East are fueling Islamic resentment and are helping anti-American terrorists recruit new members. Goss said "These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."

From DemocracyNow


Islamists liked us before Iraq? What was that incident with the planes then?

This just points out that it is imperative that they do not survive. The new Iraqi government will not play so nice.
02/17/2005 02:33:02 PM · #266
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

CIA Head: Iraq Policy Is Fueling Islamic Resentment
In his first public comments as CIA Director Porter Goss has admitted that the Bush administration's policies in the Middle East are fueling Islamic resentment and are helping anti-American terrorists recruit new members. Goss said "These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."

From DemocracyNow


I sense that you would like to change our course of action in the middle east to appease the Islamic jihadists instead of "fueling resentment". Is that true?
The problem is that their goal is to restore Islamic rule to the region. So how do you reconcile appeasement, if that is the alternative you favor, with your previously stated fear of "theocracy" in the U..S?.
Do you fear theocracy in the US but condone it aa a viable option in Iraq?
To me, that seems hypocritical.
02/17/2005 02:49:04 PM · #267
Originally posted by RonB:

By the way, I have no fear of increasing traffic to your web site - just as I have no fear of AirAmerica, which, unlike the Limbaugh's and Hannity's of conservative talk radio, has to actually PAY stations to carry talk shows for the liberals. The more people that see what liberals have to offer, the better.


I actually think you are afraid, in spite of what you claim. You and your conservative buddies -- like all school yard bullies -- are afraid that anyone will stand up to you.

This is what's been great about the 2004 election: moderates, liberals, and reasonable people everywhere, have learned that we cannot continue to be bullied by conservative rightwingers anymore; and, therefore, must stand up against your kind at every turn. There are many political battles ahead, this is just the beginning of our reclaiming of our country.
02/17/2005 03:24:34 PM · #268
Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:

By the way, I have no fear of increasing traffic to your web site - just as I have no fear of AirAmerica, which, unlike the Limbaugh's and Hannity's of conservative talk radio, has to actually PAY stations to carry talk shows for the liberals. The more people that see what liberals have to offer, the better.


I actually think you are afraid, in spite of what you claim. You and your conservative buddies -- like all school yard bullies -- are afraid that anyone will stand up to you.

This is what's been great about the 2004 election: moderates, liberals, and reasonable people everywhere, have learned that we cannot continue to be bullied by conservative rightwingers anymore; and, therefore, must stand up against your kind at every turn. There are many political battles ahead, this is just the beginning of our reclaiming of our country.


I actually made FOUR statements in my post. You only quoted one and omitted the other three that were not favorable to your earlier claims. Doesn't that make you a LIAR, according to your own stated logic?
02/17/2005 03:31:53 PM · #269
ron, i don't think you have any right to call anyone a liar, you know what they say about glass houses and rocks, right?
02/17/2005 03:38:01 PM · #270
Originally posted by RonB:

I actually made FOUR statements in my post. You only quoted one and omitted the other three that were not favorable to your earlier claims. Doesn't that make you a LIAR, according to your own stated logic?


RonB, you're absolutely ridiculous... unlike your misleading omittance of the passages from the BBC article that invalidated your claim in an earlier post; I've not omitted anything from your post that would lead the reader to misinterpret your meaning. Again, when you omitted those six lines from the BBC article, a reasonable reader would have been mislead into believing that the article supported your contention; however, as the six lines prove, the article -- in fact -- out right refutes the claim that it was unknown at the time that the Nigerian Yellow Cake documents were forgeries.

Sir, you have no credibility.

Message edited by author 2005-02-17 15:39:39.
02/17/2005 03:49:54 PM · #271
Originally posted by RonB:

I was NOT "lying". You can say that I omitted 99% of the article, but that doesn't rise to the level of "lying". I quoted portions of the article truthfully and accurately, even according to your own admission above, to wit: "he lifted a quote from an article that purportedly supported his position". Hence, you are guilty of libel against me - the act of presenting a false statement that maliciously damages my reputation.


RonB, if the 99% of the article you omitted changes that meaning of the 1% of the article you quoted, then that is a "lie" of omission. bdobe would be correct in asserting dishonesty on your part. Is the 1% you do quote significantly modified in meaning by the 99% you don't quote?

Originally posted by RonB:

I actually made FOUR statements in my post. You only quoted one and omitted the other three that were not favorable to your earlier claims. Doesn't that make you a LIAR, according to your own stated logic?


Does the portion of your post that bdobe does not quote essentially change the meaning of what he does quotes? If not, then no, he's not lying. Is the 1 paragraph that bdobe quotes significantly modified by the 3 paragraphs he does not quote? That doesn't appear to be the case.

You need to study some forensics.
02/17/2005 03:53:51 PM · #272
Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:

By the way, I have no fear of increasing traffic to your web site - just as I have no fear of AirAmerica, which, unlike the Limbaugh's and Hannity's of conservative talk radio, has to actually PAY stations to carry talk shows for the liberals. The more people that see what liberals have to offer, the better.


I actually think you are afraid, in spite of what you claim. You and your conservative buddies -- like all school yard bullies -- are afraid that anyone will stand up to you.

This is what's been great about the 2004 election: moderates, liberals, and reasonable people everywhere, have learned that we cannot continue to be bullied by conservative rightwingers anymore; and, therefore, must stand up against your kind at every turn. There are many political battles ahead, this is just the beginning of our reclaiming of our country.


We are such bullies I know. We are so cruel. Yet it is not the conservative students attacking recruiters on campus with beer bottles. It is not the conservative professors pretending to be Indian, calling Americans nazis and saying we got what we deserve. We're the bullies. Typical lib tripe. A bully uses force. How exactly did we do that? It is the libs across America that are trying to silence the Right on campuses and in the mainstream media. They flipped out when a columnists from a right leaning magazine asked the President a favorable question. But did nothing when Helen Thomas asked Clinton anything. It is the libs who want to shut down Fox News because it does not report the way they want it while ignoring the other (lower rated) news channels.

If the lesson you come away with from 2004 is that the left is the one that cannot continue to be bullied then that is great. Because it just proves how wrong liberals are. How does anyone bully you? Give me a break.

Reclaiming our country from what and returning it to what? More taxing and spending on social issues? More undermining of state rights? More activist judges (which is bad for everyone as it undermines the system)?

The tide has been turning on libs since 94 when Clinton lost the house. People are realizing that the liberal policies since FDR do not work and we are getting less and less for our investment. Conservatism is on the rise and is growing rapidly among the youth. Look at college campuses now. They are changing.

Continue on your course that the reason you lost is because of bullies. But the real reason you lost is because your message of doom and gloom, America sucks, SUV's are the worst thing on the planet, we are going to catch on fire because of global warming, and every other bad thing is caused by white men who believe in God, is a tired message and America is done believing it.

The media tried for 6 months to destroy Bush and the republicans but your party lost every major election across the country. What is to be learned form this election is that the dinosaur media is about to become extinct. And the majority of Americans (now identifying themselves Republican) do not endores the liberal agenda.

But you've got Dean now to fix all the problems. Yeaaaaaaaaaaah!

Message edited by author 2005-02-17 16:14:06.
02/17/2005 04:10:32 PM · #273
That's a pretty broad brush you're using, bbower1956. Do you use a 6" handheld or do you prefer to go with the roller instead?
02/17/2005 04:13:52 PM · #274
I've seen this thread flying around for awhile, but I haven't taken a look until now. This is one of the first things I saw:

Originally posted by bdobe:

This is what's been great about the 2004 election: moderates, liberals, and reasonable people everywhere, have learned that we cannot continue to be bullied by conservative rightwingers anymore; and, therefore, must stand up against your kind at every turn. There are many political battles ahead, this is just the beginning of our reclaiming of our country.


I admit I have not read the entire thread, but this little statement made me laugh! Our country was founded on conservative policies. Our Pledge of Allegiance speaks of God, so does our Constitution. It is even on our money! If you want to claim a non-conservative country for yourselves, go start a new one or take one over. Don't act like this country was founded on liberal ideas and that you need to "reclaim it".
If you don't like the way it was set up by the founders, then move somewhere else. Don't blame Republicans or the current administration for acting conservatively!
JD
02/17/2005 04:15:16 PM · #275
Never thought I'd say it but I like SmellyFish!
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 09/17/2021 01:30:02 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/17/2021 01:30:02 PM EDT.