kapkomet

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) That's a load of horsecrap kap. Things were done without direct knowledge and approval frequently - that's done with every administration. Is it possible that Obama knew about this? Yes. Is it possible that Bush knew about this? Yes. Is it possible that it was a snap decision from Paulson? Very yes. I understand wanting to forget about the last 8 years, but moving the goalposts back to November 2008 is just ridiculous. Of course Bush knew about it. Duh. But so did Obama.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) You're absolutely right. Obama clearly only got elected to the Presidency to blame Bush. Oh and America, too. He pretty much has everywhere he's gone. You want to deny that? I could fill up the whole damn forum with his blame game.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:20 PM) Conversely, you have seemed incapable of ever giving him credit lately. It's Obama Derangement Syndrome, and it set it much earlier than Bush Derangement Syndrome set in for most liberals. As for the second bolded part, isn't that for an investigation to determine? Everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias. Aren't you accepting the claims that the information was good/ prevented attacks that otherwise wouldn't have been stopped at face value while scrutinizing any other claims much more heavily? You would have to read all of this and the other thread. I've said before, war's a dirty business, and you have to do some things you don't want to do. It's not this pretty, nicey nice crap some people want it to be. Define "torture". You can't. They can't. No one can. The law is not clear, it's gray on purpose. But you cannot go back after the fact and change the rules, like Obama wants to do. It's not about "torture", it's about blame shifting. I JUST posted that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't believe everything Cheney has to say, nor do I Obama's drivel.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:14 PM) This is not something that's so easily quantifiable, you can't really just take statements from random people and take them at face value. I know that, but I see more s*** come from the liberals here that they always just take at face value, because it fits their viewpoints. Bush administration tortured, the information was bulls***, and no matter what, that is it. How many posts have we seen with that schtick? Too damn many.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:05 PM) Yes, BUT... You're also leaving out many important facts. 1) Konerko was fighting a hand/wrist and later an oblique injury at that time...early in the season...so obviously he would not do as well. Doesn't that follow? 2) Contreras was battling an injury after that Reds game in May or June of 2006 that broke his consecutive victories streak. He would never be the same pitcher with the White Sox. 3) Contreras was also fighting through injuries/health concerns last year but did not take them to Cooper and Guillen...he tried to pitch through them. All of those exigencies corrupt your example. You distort everything to make your arguments - and most of it is not based on fact.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 11:23 AM) One of the guys who did the legal, pre-torture interrogation of Abu "totally crazy" Zubaydah has an op-ed piece in today's NYT. It seems to give a lot more context to that memo released yesterday, and basically agrees that the torture was useless and shouldn't have been done. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/ But of course, Obama's tact here REALLY is to put any blame on future attacks back on the Bush administration because of "torture". And judging by all you liberals, it's working. You don't want to think that the Messiah can be wrong about anything. This guy brainwashes you all better then anyone I've ever seen. Just keep drinking the kool-aid and don't ever stop and ask yourself what the truth really is. And as I always say, it's about somewhere in the middle, but you all want to blame Bush so bad you can't stand the thought that they could maybe be right on some of this stuff. It couldn't be, could it? Oh, the BROKE THE LAW, HANG THOSE f***ERS. They didn't break laws. But you all want to believe it so bad you can't stand it.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 10:26 AM) Paulson was Bush's Secretary of Treasury, not Obama's. And this testimony was given in February - although its entirely possible that in the five full days of the Obama administration that this conversation happened where Geithner was not yet sworn in - I'm guessing that wasn't the case. I knew someone would say this. With that said, NOTHING done after the election was done without direct knowledge and approval from Obama's staff.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 06:05 AM) How is what she said arrogant though? I mean she gave a long and detailed response to his question, then when she said that the next thing was "he beat me in the primaries." (paraphrasing) we won the election, STFU.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 09:01 PM) The constitution explicitly states: The Supreme Court has, as far as I can tell, never actually decided whether Lincoln or the Congress's actions actually passed Constitutional muster. I'd lean towards saying it does. However, the employment of the suspension was in many cases disastrous, as authorities used their newfound power to summarily round up anyone they found troublesome. That is of course the problem...without the writ, there's no one to judge whether or not detentions are appropriate...and so there's no reason not to detain people. The court ruled that Congress must authorize the suspension, except in dire circumstances. They did just that after the decision was handed down. You know, for the good of the Union.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 08:54 PM) Like I said, we're not innocent, but neither are they. It's a sad time in America to look back on, along with slavery. But I just can't stand when people make the Indians out to be a completely harmless and innocent group that did no wrong. I hear you - it's actually somewhat the same arguement that lasted 5 pages today. Apparantly the terrorists have done nothing wrong except to threaten America, and since it was only a threat, we were supposed to become their best friends. I completely understand. With that said, Indians were defending their land... so I can't blame them.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 08:51 PM) Yeah, he's just like all those gangbangers who got shot and killed for pulling their guns on cops. According to their families, they were good kids who would never do anything to hurt anyone and were going to start school and get their life in order the next day. I do feel bad for this kid, but he deserves the death penalty IMO, but will likely get life. Sucks for him, but you need to be accountable for your actions. I'm not sure you can apply the same logic for those "kids" over there.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 08:42 PM) So your logic is that FDR was a better president than Obama because he took a couple hundred thousand American citizens and detained them without cause? So your logic is that it's ok to completely turn your back on a country in a time where there are radicals that want to kill thousands of Americans? The logic BearSox uses says that at least they gave a damn about American interests.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 08:37 PM) You forget that native americans, or as I like to call them Indians, were some of the most savage people that ever walked the earth. They killed and scalped pioneers for the fun of it. I'm not saying we were innocent in all of this, but they weren't the little innocent native americans that people try to make them out to be today. Ok, and they did nothing until we savaged the s*** out of them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 06:47 PM) There are zero situations which are made better by the presence of additional nuclear armed countries. I wholeheartedly agree. Man, the Cubs have to have won the World Series because I've agreed with both you and BS today, despite the grumblings earlier in this thread.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 06:28 PM) I'm not sure Iran is as close as people say, even so there is almost no chance they'd ever use them. It would be a nice balance of power for the middle east, I kinda hope they do get them to bring some stability to the region. This is comedy.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:01 PM) Not to mention the way we treated black people during the first half of the 19th century. The actions of people here 200 years ago directly correlate to actions taken against us by different people halfway across the world 200 years later!!! Of course it matters, until oh, mid-2008 when Michelle said America was finally something she could be proud of.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) I am saying the United States caused a chain reaction that has lead to the current situation. The argument I have been trying to make is that America has not been all innocent in all this. of course we never wanted the leaders of Iraq and Iran to torture and kill innocent life. that's just silly. But like it or not, 9/11 has its root in out middle east meddling. but we find it MUCH easier to just say "it's those crazy turban wearing Muslims that caused all this." It's not that simple, but it's taboo to say otherwise. That's stated a hell of a lot better then you said it the first time. Of course we've screwed the pooch over there.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) um yea. A lot of the $h*t that has happened int he middle east does have roots in American involvement. Ok, so to make this official, you are saying that THE UNITED STATES is guilty of killing of hundreds of thousands of people on behalf of these governments?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) We did imprison the Japanese during WW2 Yea, and I know people personally that were in those camps - they were treated well.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 12:56 PM) But we did make it official policy to support people like Saddam and the Afghan government which lead to the killing of hundreds of thousands. We were for them, before we were against them. Are you f***ing serious?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) Sure we did. Ask my native american friends about that one. Damn. You sunuva. I'm talking modern times.

Hey, wow in an hour we've almost caught up to the liberal newsmaker thread.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 12:52 PM) Because we had never killed any innocent middle easterners prior to 9/11. Never said we didn't, but I sure don't think we made it our official policy to kill thousands of civilians just for fun, either.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) Doesn't seem very effective if you need to do it over 100 times and still get no new info. Really? Release all the memos, in full detail, then we can determine what we got and how. We don't know the whole story - we have just enough to make it a political witch hunt. I thought only Republicans went after people for political purposes?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 12:47 PM) I'll make sure to stay off your lawn too. You wouldn't like my lawn. It has too many weeds.