where are your stats, pshaw ??

fuhfuhfuh I apologize if I went off half-cocked. I am a little riled up.

No problem. Besides, you're normally supposed to get angry at the other person here on Fark. Even if they didn't do anything wrong. =)

It just sickens me that people always want to focus on pissant little things that reinforce their little delusions of victimization (liberal media, conservative media, red state, blue state, etc...) rather than actual issues.

Well, for me, bias is very important, because it kills trust. The media as a whole isn't all that biased (though several noted examples definitely exist). Unfortuantely, most Americans don't even trust the watered down news stories that they currently read or view. So where do people go for news instead? Conservative talk radio, liberal blogs, email rumors, etc. You can't even begin to have a common dialogue about issues because most people don't even know the issues to begin with. Many share the blame for this, but part of the blame belongs to those in the media who continue to insist on being blatantly biased. You can't arrive at a good solution when people don't trust the sources that would give them complete information.

Somebody please answer my question: Who in the King Fark has not heard about Durbin's remarks?

Too bad these guys can't ratfark Iraq into line, because that's all they know how to do. Everything else they have touched has turned to shiat. Don't forget who was at the helm on 9/11, looking the other way, at Iraq.

If these memos were accompanied by fierce denials, I might start doubting their credulity.

Mo'Phat: If forced extraction isn't the answer, I'd love to hear an alternative.

So, there's no room in your thinking for the possibility that these people just aren't good sources of information? ANY reward or punishment system will only create liars to reap the reward or ward off the punishment.

As I recall, a certain founding father also warned --in his farewell address, no less-- of the dangers of political parties. It is disgustingly clear to me, reading through a majority of comments posted here, that the concept of party affiliation has exceeded in importance that of reason. So many comments here and elsewhere are prefaced with, or punctuated by, "Democrats blah, blah, blah," or, "Republicans blah, blah, blah," or their more recent acquaintances "Conservatives blah, blah, blah," and, "Liberals blah, blah, blah."

Blah, blah, blah!

Do we owe our thoughts, our time, and our passion to the government(s) we depend upon to continue our lives as we know them, or to some parasitic organizations hell-bent on selfishly polarizing public opinion to the point that the light of reason is incapable of ever penetrating from one side to the other, ensuring that the organizations' views and policies, rightly different than the sum of their constituents', are promoted beyond ours? The trend in modern technology -our monitors, the medical scanners in our hospitals, and whatever else- has been toward higher resolution, not lower, and it's disturbing to see that the reverse is true in the case of the formation of public policy.

Which version?

The Holy one.

I got an idea, why don't we all get on a forum and express our political opinions in hopes that we will sway someone to our side. We can achieve this goal with "facts" that we have obtained by reading, listening, and viewing our favorite, already biased outlets.

Its summer, go outside sit by a pool and drink a beer. There is nothing you can really do about any of this.

If you think you can, prove me wrong

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

-Abraham Lincoln


//you know who you are!

The cover of the American Spectator:



Should they apologize to all Liberals?

The_Devil's_Due: am I with the terrorists? WTF?

Am I with the demican and republicrat bombasts? Feh!

Hannahman:

But, seriously, when a person doesn't want his opinion changed while also wanting to appear open to new ideas, it is rather easy to continually elevate the standard evidence needs to acheive. That is to say, whatever you show Weaver95, it will never be enough. You may as well stop trying.


On another topic I was talking with Weaver95 (it might have been DIA, so forgive me if I'm wrong) about the administration falsyfing scientrific reports. He said he didn't care as long as the end result meant fewer regulations on some industry.

I think you're right in that the "look, here is the evidence" approach only works for some people. For other people you have to also point use "look, here are the costs," "look, here are the dead," "look, here is more terrorism," "look, here are the freedoms lost," "look, here they were making promises you like" but "look, here they are doing the exact opposite."

ZipBeep: Should they apologize to all Liberals?

They should apologize to their readers for doing such a terrible Photoshop job.

DrJohnZoidberg:

I got an idea, why don't we all get on a forum and express our political opinions in hopes that we will sway someone to our side. We can achieve this goal with "facts" that we have obtained by reading, listening, and viewing our favorite, already biased outlets.

Its summer, go outside sit by a pool and drink a beer. There is nothing you can really do about any of this.

If you think you can, prove me wrong


You see, it's just as easy for YOU to go to the pool. That way YOU wouldn't have to see this.

I think this is Rove trying to be a Howard Dean analog. The difference of course is that thoughtful, responsible Democrats called for Dean to moderate his tone, whereas thoughtful, responsible Republicans do not dare break with the conintern.

fuhfuhfuh:

Nice try, but your analogy fails on one hefty point. There would actually have to be a war against Voldemort's minions in order for it to be true.

Are you saying that you believe we are currently also waging a war against said forces?


I have not heard officials deny that there was indeed a war on Voldemorts minions, so I guess that means the SEALS are popping Death Eaters all day long, right? I mean, if it wasn't true, we should hear some OFFICIAL DENIALS!@!1, right?

Durbin compared the actions (chaining people to a floor, starving them, depriving them of water, subjection to extreme temperatures) to those of the Nazis. While I would agree that the Nazi's were worse by far, the idea that the statement is outrageous because the behavior is somehow conscionable against a person who has been neither tried, nor convicted of any crime, is simply wrong. What Rove did, was not compare some specific action to that of an unfavorable group, he simply made stuff up, and attempted to equate people who believe in liberty with terrorist sympathizers. While I will openly admit without hesitation that I wish to understand terrorists, I will not concede any statement that makes it seem as though I wish to stop at that. I want to understand more about terrorism so I can prevent more moderates from being converted to terrorists, close madrasas, and kill those terrorists that already exist, and I have no moral or ethical qualms with using every facility at my disposal, including my intellect, to defeat those who would do my country harm. The arguement of liberals like me isn't that war is bad, it is that war alone isn't enough; when jackasses like Rove go out there and slam people for wanting to gather information, we end up with the piss poor intelligence gathering capabilities that contributed to our inability to nip this crap in the bud in the first place.

Much Love,
Firefly

majorhopper: Don't forget who was at the helm on 9/11, looking the other way, at Iraq.

Don't be such an idiot. Anyone who blaims Bush for the terrorist attacks on 9/11 is blinded by partisan bias. Bill Clinton was President for 8 years in which we had a number of terrorist attacks on our people and property, yet nobody in their right mind would blame him for those attacks.

red_beard_neo

I'll ask again, what's the solution? How do we get the intelligence we need? I would think that torture would be near the bottom of the list of things to try in order to get the information. First would be handing the guy some cash or a new life.

People always want something...it is a bit naive to think that they'd give up any information without any sort of reward and/or punishment. It just doesn't happen, no matter what world.

I think Durbin's comments were harsh, unneccsary rhetoric, and I think they shouldn't have been said, and I think he should have apologized for them sooner than he did. And I agree, they didn't get much press. FOX News was all over it, but I didn't hear about it until I flipped there. So yes, I concede that point. However, I have two points to make:

1) The White House is the White House. Dick Durbin is a Minority Senator. Those are two different things. Washington Press hangs on every word that comes out of the White House or anyone associated with it. Anything that is said, unsaid, gone on, not gone on, etc etc...is reported and re-reported ad-nauseum...this is really nothing new. Thus I think Durbin's comments, although in poor taste and certainly inviting lots of (due) criticism, isn't a front page story in Washington as much as "Liberals are wimps...Signed, your President". And make no mistake about it, anyone who is quoted as a "White House Aide" is speaking for the President.

2) If you want to talk about what does and doesn't make the front page news in a political context, take a look around for a bit. Examples of things that get less-than-deserved press attention:

1) The Downing Street Memos
2) The Deficit
3) How our economy is tanking
etc etc...

Dick Cheney told a Democrat senator to "f*ck off" on the senate floor. That got reported for maybe one day and it was dropped. As far as taste is concern, I think we can put that comment and Durbin's comment into the trash bin.

One thing is clear though:

Submitter is a douche.

-IR

untrustworthy:

I was just wondering if the fact that it was written makes it proof in your book.

OK, I'll remember that.

The funniest thing about this whole thing is Rove laid this accusation on LIBERALS and who was the first one to come out screaming "take it back"... Hilary.

Is Hilary finally admitting she's a liberal?

TheKnownUniverse

Haizum

That is soooooooo 2005-06-24 04:55:16 PM

Stop living in the past!

"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

-Abraham Lincoln

The us Troops are nazis and I enjoy when those bottomfeeders are killed.

UncleBuck4U
"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

-Abraham Lincoln

Ironic, isn't it, that Lincoln later suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, allowing for unlawful detention, during the Civil War....

I love it when folks who don't know their history post things like this. I enjoy helping them eat it.

damitjim: Is Hilary finally admitting she's a lliberall?

I think it's spelt Hillary.

Mo'Phat: I'll ask again, what's the solution? How do we get the intelligence we need?

Gee, how 'bout we train a bunch of spies? We could call it the Central Intelligence Agency, or something nifty like that.

You ask again how to get useful information from detainees. I say again that you cannot. The "solution" you are looking for does not exist.

No Democrat ever compared US troops to Nazis or US doctrine to Nazism. This is a figment of the submitter's imagination.

What the man said, was that the ACTS perpetrated by American troops, reminded him of Nazism (and of other regimes with similar human rights records). Indeed, this is a fair comparison. Whatever horrible atrocities Nazis may have committed, they ALSO, you can be sure, forced people to sit on the floor at times, covered in shiat. As have numerous other armies and regimes throughout history.

It's okay to be outraged, but please, get your facts right. You cannot meet hyperbole with hyperbole, cannot discount someone else's fallacy by introducing one of your own. Use the facts, and your logical facilities! It ain't hard...

GraphicAddiction
Suspicion doesn't equal guilt. Sorry. It doesn't work that way.


Unless, of course, we're talking about a bunch of towell-heads who we "suspect" of being terrah-ists. In those cases, suspicion does equal guilt and it's OK to torture them and kill them without any kind of trial, correct? It's different when we're talking about towell-heads, or "sand-negroes"? I mean, "suspicion does not equal guilt" only applies to people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, right?


Help me out here. I'm just trying to understand the rules.

Kooter, how do you keep from getting permanently banned? In fact, I wonder how many times have you been banned? Fark mods can be awful testy at times and I have to believe you've had your hand slapped more than once.

UncleBuck4U: "Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

-Abraham Lincoln

lovegravy: Ironic, isn't it, that Lincoln later suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, allowing for unlawful detention, during the Civil War....

Further compounding the irony is that Lincoln was the first Republican president.

Claiming victory after Election Day, the president had called the man at the desk "the Architect." "That was a deep embarrassment," said Rove. Maybe so, but it was the truth.

White house aid my arse.
Maybe he cleans the pool or mows the lawn there?

More for UNcleBuck4U who enjoys talking about Lincoln:

The writ of Habeas Corpus protects Americans from being unjustly imprisoned. Without it, law is a sham. The writ creates the gap between freedom and despotism. Its origin dates back to the formation of our country, and the tenet that all men have equality under the law. The writ ensures that no on can be unjustly imprisoned. Any prisoner feeling this right is being abused has the ability to petition to be seen before a judge, who can declare his arrest unlawful and have him released. Yet, during the initial year of the American Civil War, Lincoln used his power and removed that right, first in Baltimore, New York, and eventually the entire union. He authorized military officers to suspend the writ before he made an official proclamation. Joshua Kleinfeld, an author who has researched this issue, wrote that "when Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, he clothed himself with more power then any individual had possessed in America before, or since.

2005-06-24 05:49:32 PM Kooter

red_beard_neo
Further compounding the irony is that Lincoln was the first Republican president.

So I guess Lincoln sucked then, eh? Oh, wait, lefties were just quoting him as a great statesman who supports the Constitution, yet bash him as soon as they realize even Lincoln knows that during times of crisis drastic measures are needed.

You Farkers suck at arguing. Your argument would have been better served with silence.

Lincoln contended that he removed the Writ in order to ensure victory and preserve the union. In fact he preserved more power for himself and removed a great deal from the United States legislative and judicial branches. The first proclamation to remove the Writ of Habeas Corpus was made in September of 1862. Not only did this proclamation, which had no scheduled end, remove the writ, it also established Marshall law. It gave full power to close down "hostile, anti war newspapers," and to arrest individuals for protesting the war.

Man, that Lincoln was a Nazi.

Cupajo: Unless, of course, we're talking about a bunch of towell-heads who we "suspect" of being terrah-ists. In those cases, suspicion does equal guilt and it's OK to torture them and kill them without any kind of trial, correct? It's different when we're talking about towell-heads, or "sand-negroes"? I mean, "suspicion does not equal guilt" only applies to people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, right?

Ya know, in a vast majority of instances I've seen more liberals using derogatory terms for people of middle-eastern decent. Your use is not only misplaced and innacurate, but also fairly offensive. Grow up.

When you enlist a bunch of people intent on getting revenge for 9/11, then point them at the enemy, then act suprised when they act in less than calm rational ways. Then you must be a moron.

lovegravy: So I guess Lincoln sucked then, eh? Oh, wait, lefties were just quoting him as a great statesman who supports the Constitution, yet bash him as soon as they realize even Lincoln knows that during times of crisis drastic measures are needed.

Further compounding the irony in THAT is that the Republicans were the lefties at the time.

September 24, 1862

Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;

Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:

Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

So you compare an all out civil war (life and death of a country) to what is happening today? Who's the tool?

Anyone know where I can download the 9/11 Videos. Those planes flying into buildings is such a cool thing to see, espcially when the building come crumbling down. Thats so cool looking.

The US is in no way, shape or form even close to being anything like Pol Pot's killing fields

The question isn't are we the same, as clearly we're not. The question is are we different enough?

kooter

Are you with the Westboro Baptist Church or something?

yeah sure.

What the hell are we supposed to use man?! Harsh language?!

//wanted for questioning...

BigTuna:

In the America that didn't condone torture behind closed doors and put its men and women in the military in great danger of reciprocity by doing so.

I am super-duper late. And not trying to associate myself with any side. But the idea that torture of POWs is somehow a new occurance in America is just ridiculous.

Though obviously i have no proof, I think its a fair assumption that torture of POWS 1. for information and 2. for pleasure has occured in every war, on every side. Its a horrible reprehensible act but a necessity of war.

Take any soldier for any country, make him watch several friends die and then leave him alone with a prisoner... its a dangerous mixture. I think most people would refrain and control their primal urges. But then you have soldiers (god bless them) who just like in society might be sick sadistic farkers.

There isn't a right or wrong here, its a perfect example of doublethink: Torture of anyone for any cause is morally wrong. Its also sometimes neccessary. I feel bad for those who receive it and those who give it.

Bellybutton:

Is there such a thing as a Liberal Republican? How about a Conservative Democrat? Radical Libertarian?

Um, arnt all Libertians radical?

Kooter

Dude you suck at trolling. At least make your troll posts a little less obvious.

-IR

2005-06-24 05:13:15 PM Weaver95

You asked what I thought, that's what I think. Diplomatic language is different from straight up, normal direct conversation.

Ah, OK - so in other words if the writer of the DSM had been using "straight up, normal direct conversation" instead of "the facts and intelligence are being fixed around the policy" we'd have "Bush and his cabinet are a pack of crazy, larcenous liars"

Thanks for the clarification.