RE: Can Bush do this?

RE: Can Bush do this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:06:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: ModeratorEleven quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I thought you was dead Yeah, me and Snake Plissken. XI I think that was a reference to FHKY's incorrect assertion earlier in this thread... quote: oh ... that's right ... I forgot ... Mod11 died, and you are now "Forum God", and get to set the terms of all discussions. Word

TankII7871 -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:08:44 AM)
FOUL!!! I'm sorry but this has been called on account of a foul. According to the post the question is Would you perform a homosexual act on a terrorist by giving said terrorist a blow job in order to gain life saving info. Two points here take either one you want. 1 Once you place your lips on his member he is then doomed to hell so only the threat of the blow job would work not the actual act. So would i threaten to blow the guy yes would i actually do it well in this case doing so is a mot point. 2 One man giving another man a blow job as a homosexual act. As set forth by the Clinton administration Oral sex is not sex therefor it is not a sexual act therefor its can not be homosexual or heterosexual. Just here to stir the pot for the laughs Eric

Owner59 -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 9:39:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TankII7871 FOUL!!! I'm sorry but this has been called on account of a foul. According to the post the question is Would you perform a homosexual act on a terrorist by giving said terrorist a blow job in order to gain life saving info. Two points here take either one you want. 1 Once you place your lips on his member he is then doomed to hell so only the threat of the blow job would work not the actual act. So would i threaten to blow the guy yes would i actually do it well in this case doing so is a mot point. 2 One man giving another man a blow job as a homosexual act. As set forth by the Clinton administration Oral sex is not sex therefor it is not a sexual act therefor its can not be homosexual or heterosexual. Just here to stir the pot for the laughs Eric I`ll take both. 1st one.The happy-go-lucky torturers, could do the "dirty" on another guy,like his best friend,so he knows they`re serious.Then tell him that he`s(she`s) next.It could start with simple petting,and progress slowly.They could get someone who can suck start a Harley,so there`s no danger of a botched interrogation. 2nd.Doesn`t matter how the term "sex",is legally defined,here in the states.It only matters what the crazy jihadist believes.And that`s that they`re going to hell for eternity,to burn and be pissed on by satan,if the go gay.Not a pretty sight..... My question is phrased,just like the pro-torturer`s ticking time bomb scenario. The question is ,"if it would work(remove the word torture,and replace it w/ BJ),would you do it,to save American lives? Not whether it would work or not. If they believe that torture works and is necessary,then they must also be brave enough,and willing enough,to do what was necessary to extract that vital,time-sensitive intel.And that includes going down town,on a suspect. This question is for the pro-torture types.(but I don`t mind someone stirring the pot)[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m9.gif[/image]

luckydog1 -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 11:28:44 AM)
Well first off owner59, Yes, if that was the only way to save lives, I would blow the guy. If you make up some silly scenario where I have to take it up the ass, I guess I would do that if needed. Now you can snicker and say I am Gay or something..... Man, my open question must have really hit a nerve on you. Not only were you scared to actually answer it, you went off throwing up distractions. Now how about a serious answer to what I asked. If there were a natural disaster, and a couple of large Democratic states physically could not vote, would you want to delay the election or hold it right away garunteeing a Republican victory?

Aylee -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 12:20:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Maybe "I can`t recall" would work.Or Alberto`s funniest phrase,"I can`t recall,recalling".That would work even better.lol Hey smart guy......If you can hash out and explain what ,"I can`t recall,recalling" means,you win all the stuffed toys,on the middle shelf. You have ten minutes. Go. John Carter Noah Wyle

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 12:46:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Maybe "I can`t recall" would work.Or Alberto`s funniest phrase,"I can`t recall,recalling".That would work even better.lol Hey smart guy......If you can hash out and explain what ,"I can`t recall,recalling" means,you win all the stuffed toys,on the middle shelf. You have ten minutes. Go. John Carter Noah Wyle [sm=biggrin.gif] Had to Google it. Not an ER fan. [:D] I think either name would be a sufficient reply to most of his "political" posts. Firm

Aylee -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 1:00:42 PM)
Neither am I, my brother in law suggested it, and I had to ask who it was.

oreogirl -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 1:07:47 PM)
Does anyone have a foil hat?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 1:10:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind What is even scarier is that he effectively has control of the Supreme Court now and could simply have term limits declared unconstitutional and then steal another election as he did the last two. No he can't. Presidential term limits are via constitutional amendment. They are constitutional by definition, and not subject to judicial review.

Petronius -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 1:34:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling I made this a seperate post because it it worthy of being seperate.........Torture and the UCMJ........ The president of the United States is given the power and authority to withdraw us from the Geneva Conventions or limit or compliance with them at any time he desires. This was very specifically and intentionally set up with respect to torture because there was a fear of "What if we have captured an enemy (then a communist now a terrorist) who we know for certain is involved in a plot to plant a nuke on U.S. soil?" The president should (and does) have authority to authorize any means necessary to get details of the plot from that individual and it would most certainly involve torture. In the case of Guantanimo, the PRESIDENT authorized certain interrogation techniques that are widely considered to be torture (I agree that they are). Since the order came from the president and we are talking about a treaty agreement instead of U.S. laws, it was a lawful order and the soldiers should not be held responsible. The president should be, but not the soldiers. If the soldiers were using such techniques at the command of a military officer, they would have been guilty of following an unlawful order and guilty of all the crimes associated with following that order. However, the ONLY man who has the authority to authorize torture gave the order and they were obligated to comply under the UCMJ. The Nazis tried that argument at Nuremberg. The U.S. and other prosecutors challenged it and the U.S. and other judges rejected it. The results for the Nazis who tried the argument was a rope around the neck, delivered by a U.S. (and not other) hangman. Even the rightwingers can't get the UCMJ to force soldiers to follow unlawful orders, rightwing propagandist rants to the contrary. On the other hand, torture as laid down by the Bush government certainly seems like "terrorism" to me, at least as its defined by federal law.

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 1:57:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind What is even scarier is that he effectively has control of the Supreme Court now and could simply have term limits declared unconstitutional and then steal another election as he did the last two. No he can't. Presidential term limits are via constitutional amendment. They are constitutional by definition, and not subject to judicial review. Torture is prohibited too, via the 5th and 14th Amendments. That hasn't stopped Bush and Gonzales from ordering it and CALLING IT legal...

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 2:02:16 PM)
The ONLY thing you should be writing are the answers to these outstanding questions you've spent so much time and energy running away from. I'd LIKE TO move forward and answer your NEW questions in turn, but your evasion in answering my PENDING questions prevents that. quote: "Has the Surge been successful in achieving the goals set prior to its execution?" and "If you were wrong then, why should anyone give credibility to what you say now?"

Aylee -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 2:07:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oreogirl Does anyone have a foil hat? Foil hat?? We are using titanium beanies and underoos around here.

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 2:10:45 PM)
Once AT&T started feeding all the traffic on their backbone the the NSA, the tin-foil-hat crowd was validated in their concerns.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 2:21:34 PM)
Noah Wylie

NavyDDG54 -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 2:22:39 PM)
For everyone here. The President has the authority to suspend the geneva convention therefore making it legal for him to order torture. The people we have in Guantanamo are not nice people. They are little more than animals. The terrorists being held there are the ones directly responsible for (intentionially) killing innocent civilians. And many of them have information vital to saving American lives. Hypothetical question...if we knew for a fact that one of those terrorsits had info on a nuke in the US would you oppose using torture to get that info and stop that nuke? The liberals criticize Bush for not doing enough to stop 9-11, maybe if we had tortured the terrorists prior to 9-11 we would have been able to stop it. As for Iraq, we are WINNING. You want to support us (I say us because I am in the military and have been to Iraq). Send us care packages (phonecards, letters, snacks, batteries, etc...). We are determined the finish this war with a victory. It's taken a long time yes (4 1/2 years in Iraq) but no longer than WWII. with significantly less US casualties. For those of you who think that Bush started the war you are wrong. The terrorists have been at war with us for decades: 1979: Iran Hostage crisis April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait. January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed. April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain. September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again). December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran. June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut. After a let-up, the attacks then restarted: Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, 224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 and 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. Simultaneously, the murderous assault of militant Islam also took place on U.S. soil: July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area. August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich. August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash. September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga. January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz. November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York. February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York. January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va. February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center. March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge. February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building. October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City." Others in 1999: -Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots 2000: -The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks. - USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port coast of Aden, Yemen, by al-Qaeda 2001: -9-11

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 2:26:28 PM)
"IS THAT YOUR FINAL ANSWER"? If so, we can just permanently tag you "WITHOUT CREDIBILITY: UNRESOLVED PAST FAILURES OF ANALYSIS", and disregard whatever you say henceforth. I have given you every opportunity to explain your obvious failure, but your immature evasiveness has become too tiresome. I can stop asking for replies, and just inform people of your proven lack of credibility. Your record speaks for itself. And I wouldn't be proud of it if I were you.

mnottertail -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 2:27:47 PM)
OH FUCKING SNORE; ALREADY!!!!!!! 1979: Iran Hostage crisis (maybe you can tell us what started that....Hint Hint Hint, the Iranians looking for some of our weapons to even up which war that we were supplying the other side of?) History for $10 bucks.....you should get this easily........hell $1 dollar. talk maybe about Shah an Shah and 1954 and so on, a little and how they started that sort of thing (LOLOLOLOL), you will be excused from anything before that in that area as an outcropping of a really fucked up world war........but may be called into account regarding Jordan and Libya and so on....... Ron

farglebargle -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 2:30:48 PM)
If you're man enough to torture a prisoner tied to a bed, why aren't you man enough to submit yourself to police custody for your crime, and plead guilty to the charge of Torture -- accepting the LEGAL CONSEQUENCES of your CHOICE TO TORTURE A PRISONER? I think that's the real issue here -- Not "Under extraordinary circumstances, what should a person 'in the breech' do should the worst come to the worst"?, but "Why should someone who DOES break the law under those circumstances, evade the legal consequences of their choice?"

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can Bush do this? (1/2/2008 2:31:35 PM)
Navy, Excellent post and points. However, the "John Carter", "Noah Wyle" and tinfoil hat crowd will simply dismiss any such information and start calling you names, make up asinine questions unrelated to anything you've said, and pose convoluted, unlikely scenarios in an attempt to cloud the issue. And that's on a good day. Firm

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875