Just for a change of pace

[Honu]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Again, what's not to like about a moody dyke?

Not moody , realistic is more like it , just think of all the money ,time and grief that would be saved.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I'm not so sure I understand this. Brian already said he repects a womans choice, no matter what her choice is, an he respects her choice even if he disagree's with her decison.

He was trying to say if you are pro-choice you must believe like he that the unborn fetus is just a mass of cells and thus you'd have no problem with 6 vs. 1 abortion. I'm saying some in fact more than some people believe it's her right to choose but also believe that choice is the lessor of two evils to be avoided in the future. The other side would say an abortion is little more than taking a big crap philosophically. He really isn't very malleable.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I'm not so sure I understand this. Brian already said he repects a womans choice, no matter what her choice is, an he respects her choice even if he disagree's with her decison.

or her anatomy?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

He was trying to say if you are pro-choice you must believe like he that the unborn fetus is just a mass of cells and thus you'd have no problem with 6 vs. 1 abortion. I'm saying some in fact more than some people believe it's her right to choose but also believe that choice is the lessor of two evils to be avoided in the future. The other side would say an abortion is little more than taking a big crap philosophically. He really isn't very malleable.

thank you for clearing that up.. and I agree... and I'm sure Brian agree's also. There are probably many different ways of being pro choice.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

or her anatomy?

I'm not sure Brian is into a womans anatomy.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

He was trying to say if you are pro-choice you must believe like he that the unborn fetus is just a mass of cells and thus you'd have no problem with 6 vs. 1 abortion. I'm saying some in fact more than some people believe it's her right to choose but also believe that choice is the lessor of two evils to be avoided in the future. The other side would say an abortion is little more than taking a big crap philosophically. He really isn't very malleable.

I agree totally that there are people like that out there, but was just wondering where Lori stood.

I'm indifferent about lots of things in life, but I'm completely serious and not capable of being moved when it comes to the death penalty, choice, and gay rights.

For me, everything else has at least some grey areas to think about and discuss.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

thank you for clearing that up.. and I agree... and I'm sure Brian agree's also. There are probably many different ways of being pro choice.

Completely. I was just pointing out where I stood. I am far more pro-choice than most pro-choicers, and that doesn't really have anything to do with how much I may love/not love abortion itself or exactly where along the lines in a pregnancy I think it becomes increasingly problematic to not consider it a a capable human being. It's just about how seriously pro-choice I am, regardless of how much I agree with those choices.

[dellinger63]

Anyone want to bet these memos don't get released?

Cheney Calls For More CIA Reports To Be Declassified
Mon Apr 20 2009 16:20:53 ET

In a two part interview airing tonight and tomorrow night on FOX News Channel’s Hannity (9-10PM ET), former Vice President Dick Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration’s interrogation tactics:

CHENEY:

“One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.”

“I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.”

“And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”

Developing...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I think that should be a murder and a child abuse charge. Women in this day of age fully know what the harm of doing drugs while pregnant are.

Here is more of my laws if I was dictator (B-dub would HATE me)

If you do any drugs/ smoke cigs / smoke pot / drink booze while pregnant you get arrested on Child Abuse and you cannot keep your baby. If the baby dies as a result it would be a murder charge also.

Abortion will be legal.. but to punish women who take advantage of abortion by being sluts and not caring.. just get the baby aborted... I would make the cost of your first abortion be $2,000. Cost of 2nd abortion, $4,000.. 3rd abortion will be $8,000 and so on. I guess it would be impossible to enforce this law. Free abortion in the case of rape/incest.

If you rape someone or molest children.. get your balls and dick chopped off.

Public hangings for convicted 1st degree murderers... I think that would be effective in keeping people from committing premedidated murder.

Gay marriage is legal & pot is legal.


I dont know if anyone would vote for me.

You have my vote
though I think "Running Man" style show would be more entertaining than hangings.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

It sure doesn't help. How can I complain about the barbaric things they do in Islamic countries, and then say nothing when our government does some of the same?

Please be serious. Apples and oranges.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm just saying that it doesn't mean it was actually going to happen. It doesn't mean it was close to happening, and therefore any intelligence was actionable. It just means they thought about it.

Also, don't forget that we had intelligence about them planning to strike in the United States too, remember that? Just saying. Having intelligence doesn't mean we stop anything necessarily, it just means we know about some portion of the plan.

And regardless, I don't recall having ever been a really serious 'torture never works' type. Maybe I have and you'll find it for me, but I certainly don't remember ever holding a steadfast view on it. I'm obviously suspicious of it, which was the point of my post to Chuck...that I'm dubious of these claims given the source, especially if that source was busy trying to find a way to justify torturing people, you kinda get the feeling they'd have an incentive to say that it works...whether it does or not, right? That's not partisan stuff, that's simple common sense.

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...nterrogations/

Will you believe that the "torture" was helpful to our country if the Obama national intelligence director says so??

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...nterrogations/

Will you believe that the "torture" was helpful to our country if the Obama national intelligence director says so??

Already cleared this up.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And regardless, I don't recall having ever been a really serious 'torture never works' type. Maybe I have and you'll find it for me, but I certainly don't remember ever holding a steadfast view on it. I'm obviously suspicious of it, which was the point of my post to Chuck...that I'm dubious of these claims given the source, especially if that source was busy trying to find a way to justify torturing people, you kinda get the feeling they'd have an incentive to say that it works...whether it does or not, right? That's not partisan stuff, that's simple common sense.

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Already cleared this up.

true

[brianwspencer]

Though, he also said "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means."

Implicit in that statement is that we may have jumped right to it, straight to torture, without even trying anything else.

What happened happened, but it doesn't mean we have to keep doing it. If it was all so sweet and wonderful, why is it that interrogation tapes were intentionally destroyed? If it was so wonderful and productive, shouldn't those tapes have made great training material...since they were legal techniques being used and all?

That's admittedly mild conjecture on my part, but it's not really that tough to logically connect the dots. If everything was legal, then there'd be nothing to hide. And if it was both legal and productive, you KNOW they'd have been singing it from the rooftops and using it to teach other people how to do it.

Just thinking out loud. Can't know everything, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion, and it doesn't take a "typical liberal," either. Just some common sense that people don't destroy things like that if there's nothing to hide.

[hi_im_god]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us...ml?_r=1&ref=us

interesting history of the haphazard manner we came to embrace water boarding after previously prosecuting it as a war crime.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

It's one thing to separate people from others, AND IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING TO TORTURE THEM. I think they were correct in doing it here during WW2. It should of been done in a way that made sure none of the Japanese Americans lost any property or valuables etc., but I think that's an example of a necessary evil done to protect a nation at war. Yea, we kept some citizens from being able to roam freely for a couple years. Big deal. Torturing people without even a trial? That's gunna keep us from ever electing a Texan for president again. That's was the last fkn Hee Haw in charge..ever!

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

It's one thing to separate people from others, AND IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING TO TORTURE THEM. I think they were correct in doing it here during WW2. It should of been done in a way that made sure none of the Japanese Americans lost any property or valuables etc., but I think that's an example of a necessary evil done to protect a nation at war. Yea, we kept some citizens from being able to roam freely for a couple years. Big deal. Torturing people without even a trial? That's gunna keep us from ever electing a Texan for president again. That's was the last fkn Hee Haw in charge..ever!

Add a guy from Wyoming- Cheney
and a guy from Illinois - Rumsfeld

Doubt Bush stumbled on to this without their input.

[hi_im_god]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/bu...torture&st=cse

just an article about how the debate was framed. interesting how so many of the arguments heard here in support of torture mirror the misinformation spread in this single interview.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Add a guy from Wyoming- Cheney
and a guy from Illinois - Rumsfeld

Doubt Bush stumbled on to this without their input.

No more messes from Texas.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

No more messes from Texas.

Hey, they said that after LBJ also and his Great Society.
And along comes the Bush family infiltrating the NE to Florida,
to Texas.

If our current Governor runs for anything on the federal level
I will allow myself to be waterboarded for charity.

Last week, Sean Hannity, a conservative Fox News host, said he would agree to be waterboarded (for charity) when a guest proposed that he experience it.

And then I want to waterboard Sean Hannity.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Hey, they said that after LBJ also and his Great Society.
And along comes the Bush family infiltrating the NE to Florida,
to Texas.

The 1st thing only took place because JFK had his brains blown out. What ya gunna do? Elect Goldwater? The younger Bush got a half mil less votes than Gore. In 2004, Kearry was more boring in speeches than my mom is on the phone. My mom still thinks my Dad can't figure out his hearing-aid settings (he chooses not to.)