Pathetic Pelosi... just PATHETIC....

Jarod said:
I dont belive we know who is right and who is wrong in this situation. But I have not heard the CIA outright say they informed Pelosi about waterboarding (tourture). I have heard Pelosi say they did not.

Conservatives are on real shakey ground here.... They are the ones who condoned the waterboarding in the first place!
Click to expand...

I agree that it is a he said/she said situation with regards to the CIA briefing in 2002.

The point Jarod is that Pelosi knew about the waterboarding in 2003. Which she finally admitted to. This means she knew for six years and did nothing to fight it. She was complicit in the act. This in no way removes responsibility from others nor does it mean her actions are worse than others. The point of this thread is that if she truly wants a 'truth comission' she should have began with herself if she wanted to avoid looking like such a hypocrit.
 
Superfreak said:
I agree that it is a he said/she said situation with regards to the CIA briefing in 2002.

The point Jarod is that Pelosi knew about the waterboarding in 2003. Which she finally admitted to. This means she knew for six years and did nothing to fight it. She was complicit in the act. This in no way removes responsibility from others nor does it mean her actions are worse than others. The point of this thread is that if she truly wants a 'truth comission' she should have began with herself if she wanted to avoid looking like such a hypocrit.
Click to expand...

Im all for that, I belive if she failed to say anything for 6 years and was not prevented from saying anythign due to rules about Secrecy Status of the briefings, she should be removed from office for non-fesence. Those who came up with the plan, and those who authorized the plan should be prosecuted for the crimes.
 
Jarod said:
Im all for that, I belive if she failed to say anything for 6 years and was not prevented from saying anythign due to rules about Secrecy Status of the briefings, she should be removed from office for non-fesence. Those who came up with the plan, and those who authorized the plan should be prosecuted for the crimes.
Click to expand...

All it would have taken is one of the numerous 'anonymous source' stories from the Times or Post or any other news source. Not to mention the fact that as minority leader she could have thrown her weight into a behind the scenes fight with Bush. It doesn't mean she would have won, on that I think she is correct. However, at least she would have tried.

As for the prosecution aspect, waterboarding is torture. Torture is illegal. The question becomes, do we have a zero tolerance policy for breaking that law or not? If breaking the law saves lives, can it be justifiable to do so?

If your wife or child was badly injured, would you break the law if doing so increased the odds of saving them?

I would imagine the opinions of those on the board are going to vary widely on such a question. (the torture one, not the wife/child one)
 
Jarod said:
I dont belive we know who is right and who is wrong in this situation. But I have not heard the CIA outright say they informed Pelosi about waterboarding (tourture). I have heard Pelosi say they did not.

Conservatives are on real shakey ground here.... They are the ones who condoned the waterboarding in the first place!
Click to expand...

LOL so you're saying that if conservatives didn't give Pelosi the opportunity to lie she wouldn't have?
 
Superfreak said:
All it would have taken is one of the numerous 'anonymous source' stories from the Times or Post or any other news source. Not to mention the fact that as minority leader she could have thrown her weight into a behind the scenes fight with Bush. It doesn't mean she would have won, on that I think she is correct. However, at least she would have tried.

As for the prosecution aspect, waterboarding is torture. Torture is illegal. The question becomes, do we have a zero tolerance policy for breaking that law or not? If breaking the law saves lives, can it be justifiable to do so?

If your wife or child was badly injured, would you break the law if doing so increased the odds of saving them?

I would imagine the opinions of those on the board are going to vary widely on such a question. (the torture one, not the wife/child one)
Click to expand...


Where do you come down on the bolded question?


Note: The rest are nonsense.
 
Dungheap said:
Where do you come down on the bolded question?


Note: The rest are nonsense.
Click to expand...

The rest of what are nonsense? The rest of the questions?

Let me guess, they are nonsense because YOU say so right? Fucking hack.

They are most certainly relevant to this conversation. If you cannot see that then you are more of a lemming and a hack than I imagined.
 
Dungheap said:
Where do you come down on the bolded question?


Note: The rest are nonsense.
Click to expand...

As for your question. I do think there are exceptions to the rules and the laws.

As I said, most people would break the law if it meant saving a loved one. You obviously would let them die, but sane people would not.
 
Superfreak said:
The rest of what are nonsense? The rest of the questions?

Let me guess, they are nonsense because YOU say so right? Fucking hack.

They are most certainly relevant to this conversation. If you cannot see that then you are more of a lemming and a hack than I imagined.
Click to expand...


I'm beginning to think that you don't really know what a lemming is. And I think it is quite humorous that, although you think torture is justifiable, you want Pelosi burned at the stake for favoring a Truth Commission.

And the questions are stupid because the real world doesn't really work that way. The issue isn't whether we can dream up some hypothetical scenario wherein torture may be justifiable but whether the government ought to devise a systemic regime of torture to extract information from people in its custody. You seem to think it's OK. I don't.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm beginning to think that you don't really know what a lemming is. And I think it is quite humorous that, although you think torture is justifiable, you want Pelosi burned at the stake for favoring a Truth Commission.

And the questions are stupid because the real world doesn't really work that way. The issue isn't whether we can dream up some hypothetical scenario wherein torture may be justifiable but whether the government ought to devise a systemic regime of torture to extract information from people in its custody. You seem to think it's OK. I don't.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... you are such a pathetic hack.

I said torture COULD be justifiable in extreme circumstances you hack.

I did not say I want Pelosi burned at the stake or any such nonsense. I am mocking her for wanting a 'truth commission' while the same time she has been lying about what she knew on the subject and when she knew it. I have given you how many articles from across the political spectrum. It seems everyone can see her hypocricy except for you.

As for the real world... do you honestly expect anyone to believe that no one has ever broken the law to protect a loved one? or to increase the odds of saving a life? They are extreme cases and should not be something that occurs frequently. But they do happen you twit.

Like I said, SANE people will tell you that they would break the law if such a situation arose. Only insane little hacks like you would follow the law and put their lives at risk.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO.... you are such a pathetic hack.

I said torture COULD be justifiable in extreme circumstances you hack.

I did not say I want Pelosi burned at the stake or any such nonsense. I am mocking her for wanting a 'truth commission' while the same time she has been lying about what she knew on the subject and when she knew it. I have given you how many articles from across the political spectrum. It seems everyone can see her hypocricy except for you.

As for the real world... do you honestly expect anyone to believe that no one has ever broken the law to protect a loved one? or to increase the odds of saving a life? They are extreme cases and should not be something that occurs frequently. But they do happen you twit.

Like I said, SANE people will tell you that they would break the law if such a situation arose. Only insane little hacks like you would follow the law and put their lives at risk.
Click to expand...


1) Well, why don't you tell me whether the torture activities of the US government were justified. That's the issue.

2) You don't know that she lied. You seem to have admitted that upthread a bit. And she hasn't changed her story about what she knew and when she knew it. I provided the link to her previous statements on the matter and she hasn't changed her story. Citing to various columnists doesn't really support your argument much. It just means that there are other people that, like you, are more likely to believe the CIA than Pelosi.

3) I also fail to see the hypocrisy in Pelosi calling for a truth commission. It's isn't as though what she knew and when she knew it wouldn't a part of that process. By the way, where do you stand on a truth commssion?

4) Again, I demur on your role-playing games. Fantasize about torturing people with others if you like, but I don't really get down like that.
 
Dungheap said:
1) Well, why don't you tell me whether the torture activities of the US government were justified. That's the issue.

2) You don't know that she lied. You seem to have admitted that upthread a bit. And she hasn't changed her story about what she knew and when she knew it. I provided the link to her previous statements on the matter and she hasn't changed her story. Citing to various columnists doesn't really support your argument much. It just means that there are other people that, like you, are more likely to believe the CIA than Pelosi.

3) I also fail to see the hypocrisy in Pelosi calling for a truth commission. It's isn't as though what she knew and when she knew it wouldn't a part of that process. By the way, where do you stand on a truth commssion?

4) Again, I demur on your role-playing games. Fantasize about torturing people with others if you like, but I don't really get down like that.
Click to expand...


1) I do not know if they were justified or not. I want to know who it was done to, what information was received due to it and whether or not it saved lives. So to answer number three here.... yes, I do support a review of what occured. I do not support a partisan witchhunt. If you are going to do it, then everything needs to come out. Not just what one party did.

2) Yes, you are correct... she didn't lie. Everyone was just mocking her constant changing of positions because she wasnt deliberately trying to mislead them as to what she knew. She hasn't changed her story? Is that why she has to search her prepared statement to recall just what her story is this time around? Fucking hack.

3) addressed

4) Fantasizing about torture? Wow, imagine that, a strawman again. The question you fucking hack was is there ever a time that it can be justifiable to break a law? The answer is.... of course. No law can account for all possible circumstances you fucking hack. That is why you have things called 'justifiable homicide'. There has to be an investigation to make sure it was justifiable, but there are instances where breaking the law can indeed be so. Unless of course you are a brain dead lemming that will follow its leaders off a cliff because you follow without regards to where they lead you.
 
Superfreak said:
1) I do not know if they were justified or not. I want to know who it was done to, what information was received due to it and whether or not it saved lives. So to answer number three here.... yes, I do support a review of what occured. I do not support a partisan witchhunt. If you are going to do it, then everything needs to come out. Not just what one party did.

2) Yes, you are correct... she didn't lie. Everyone was just mocking her constant changing of positions because she wasnt deliberately trying to mislead them as to what she knew. She hasn't changed her story? Is that why she has to search her prepared statement to recall just what her story is this time around? Fucking hack.

3) addressed

4) Fantasizing about torture? Wow, imagine that, a strawman again. The question you fucking hack was is there ever a time that it can be justifiable to break a law? The answer is.... of course. No law can account for all possible circumstances you fucking hack. That is why you have things called 'justifiable homicide'. There has to be an investigation to make sure it was justifiable, but there are instances where breaking the law can indeed be so. Unless of course you are a brain dead lemming that will follow its leaders off a cliff because you follow without regards to where they lead you.
Click to expand...

1) You can't give an opinion based on the publicly available information? You're basically just waiting for someone to give a reason to say that the torture was justified. I guess we'll check back in with yo after Cheney's speech at AEI later this week. I'm sure he'll sort out your thoughts for you.

2) What specifically is the lie. Can you present it in a sentence or two? Here, we'll play fill in the blank:

Pelosi lied by saying _____________ when in reality _______________ is true.

3) I guess this is promising, although a simple yes without the caveats about "witch hunts" and the like is unfortunate. You're tipping your hand early.

4) The issue isn't about whether an individual under a certain set of circumstances is legally justified for torturing another person. The issue that we are dealing with is whether it is appropriate for the government to have a systemic torture regime for obtaining information from detainees in its custody. Even answering "yes" to the former question doesn't come close to dealing with the issues presented by the latter. Should the government have a torture regime in place?
 
Dungheap said:
1) You can't give an opinion based on the publicly available information? You're basically just waiting for someone to give a reason to say that the torture was justified. I guess we'll check back in with yo after Cheney's speech at AEI later this week. I'm sure he'll sort out your thoughts for you.

2) What specifically is the lie. Can you present it in a sentence or two? Here, we'll play fill in the blank:

Pelosi lied by saying _____________ when in reality _______________ is true.

3) I guess this is promising, although a simple yes without the caveats about "witch hunts" and the like is unfortunate. You're tipping your hand early.

4) The issue isn't about whether an individual under a certain set of circumstances is legally justified for torturing another person. The issue that we are dealing with is whether it is appropriate for the government to have a systemic torture regime for obtaining information from detainees in its custody. Even answering "yes" to the former question doesn't come close to dealing with the issues presented by the latter. Should the government have a torture regime in place?
Click to expand...

1) I am sorry that you want a blanket yes or no. I understand you are a hack. My answer based on what I know at this point is that it was probably justified in some of the instances, but most likely not in others. Which is exactly what you probably didn't want to hear as it takes both sides of position. But I find it hard to believe that all the instances fell on one side or the other.

2) Play your gotcha games with someone else. I have shown you how many articles where everyone but YOU thinks she was deliberately misleading them when she said she did not know about the waterboarding.

3) It is not tipping my hand you dolt. If it is legitimate, it will go after everyone who was involved and determine what degree they were involved. It will also determine if any of the situations where it was used was justifiable. That said, if they go after just one party and refuse to look at both parties, then it is indeed a political witchhunt where there true motivation is to punish the opposing party and not really get to the whole truth.

4) A Systemic torture regime? Please provide more details on this as I want to be clear on that to which you are referring.
 
Superfreak said:
1) I am sorry that you want a blanket yes or no. I understand you are a hack. My answer based on what I know at this point is that it was probably justified in some of the instances, but most likely not in others. Which is exactly what you probably didn't want to hear as it takes both sides of position. But I find it hard to believe that all the instances fell on one side or the other.

2) Play your gotcha games with someone else. I have shown you how many articles where everyone but YOU thinks she was deliberately misleading them when she said she did not know about the waterboarding.

3) It is not tipping my hand you dolt. If it is legitimate, it will go after everyone who was involved and determine what degree they were involved. It will also determine if any of the situations where it was used was justifiable. That said, if they go after just one party and refuse to look at both parties, then it is indeed a political witchhunt where there true motivation is to punish the opposing party and not really get to the whole truth.

4) A Systemic torture regime? Please provide more details on this as I want to be clear on that to which you are referring.
Click to expand...


1) That's garbage. Perhaps you could elaborate on the instances that you think torture was justified.

2) It was a very simple proposition involving filling blanks. Jesus. If she lied it shouldn't be too difficult a task.

3) OK. Fair enough. Of course you understand that all of the people that actually designed approved and implemented torture were Republicans working the Bush Administration, right?

4) Seriously?

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Detainees.121108.pdf

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html

There's a start. Let me know when you finish with those.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO.... you are such a pathetic hack.

I said torture COULD be justifiable in extreme circumstances you hack.

I did not say I want Pelosi burned at the stake or any such nonsense. I am mocking her for wanting a 'truth commission' while the same time she has been lying about what she knew on the subject and when she knew it. I have given you how many articles from across the political spectrum. It seems everyone can see her hypocricy except for you.

As for the real world... do you honestly expect anyone to believe that no one has ever broken the law to protect a loved one? or to increase the odds of saving a life? They are extreme cases and should not be something that occurs frequently. But they do happen you twit.

Like I said, SANE people will tell you that they would break the law if such a situation arose. Only insane little hacks like you would follow the law and put their lives at risk.
Click to expand...

You are calling her a liar, so I assume you have some evidece she is lying... Will you provide that evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top