2
   

Sigh, more lies about abuses

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:28 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:


The determinative factor is that Obama has no interest in pursuing a hypocritical prosecution of Bush for trying to save American lives.


Who said anything about Bush? There are dozens or hundreds of people who signed off on this.

You believe what you want, and just try and keep the bile down after more and more people get tried and convicted. You might be pissed, but you'll do nothing; for in your heart you know that 'trying to save lives' is no excuse for breaking the law at all. It's a pathetic dodge for people who couldn't be bothered to follow the rules.

Cycloptichorn
dlowan
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:31 pm
@oralloy,
Snort.


So...if anyone in the whole world committed a crime or misdemaenour, this lets American administrations off th ehook for any illegal act they perform?

I assume this works both ways:

You guys illegally invade a country and kill untold thousands of its citizens. This means that anyone whyo invaded you has no moral case to answer, by your apparent logic (logic not being a strong point of yours, so your actual argument is not clearly formulated.)

You guys illegally detain and torture ...I presume this means you are happy to have this done to you?

You assassinate or attempt to assassinate or support assassination of other country's leaders...i assume you have no objection to others doing this to you?

Clinton had sex...this somehow makes murder, torture, breaking your own laws, breaking international treaties etc fine?

Ok...I guess there is no law and no morality that we need to be concerned about, then.

What a mindless, amoral cretin you are.



oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
The determinative factor is that Obama has no interest in pursuing a hypocritical prosecution of Bush for trying to save American lives.


Who said anything about Bush? There are dozens or hundreds of people who signed off on this.


And Obama has no interest in waging a hypocritical prosecution against them for trying to save American lives.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
You believe what you want, and just try and keep the bile down after more and more people get tried and convicted. You might be pissed, but you'll do nothing; for in your heart you know that 'trying to save lives' is no excuse for breaking the law at all. It's a pathetic dodge for people who couldn't be bothered to follow the rules.

Cycloptichorn


Interesting fantasy.

Not likely Obama will play along though.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:50 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
Snort.


So...if anyone in the whole world committed a crime or misdemaenour, this lets American administrations off th ehook for any illegal act they perform?

I assume this works both ways:

You guys illegally invade a country and kill untold thousands of its citizens. This means that anyone whyo invaded you has no moral case to answer, by your apparent logic (logic not being a strong point of yours, so your actual argument is not clearly formulated.)


I should note the fact that there is more logic in my little toe than you'll ever possess.



dlowan wrote:
You guys illegally detain and torture ...I presume this means you are happy to have this done to you?


Torture is illegal, but there is nothing illegal about us detaining captured enemy soldiers.

As for "having it done to us", it has always been done to American soldiers, and no one ever does anything about it. Nothing new there.

(Perhaps if the people who are upset over us torturing people would also have gotten upset when our guys were tortured, their views would actually matter now.)



dlowan wrote:
You assassinate or attempt to assassinate or support assassination of other country's leaders...i assume you have no objection to others doing this to you?


Well, it would be a clear act of war on the part of whoever did it. We'd be fully within our rights to demolish the offending country.



dlowan wrote:
Clinton had sex...this somehow makes murder, torture, breaking your own laws, breaking international treaties etc fine?


What murder?

I have no problem with Bush breaking the law to save American lives.

And the issue was not Clinton having sex. The issue was the long series of crimes he committed to cover up the sex.

If you don't want Republicans to be above the law, then don't put Democrats above the law.



dlowan wrote:
Ok...I guess there is no law and no morality that we need to be concerned about, then.

What a mindless, amoral cretin you are.


Laughing
dlowan
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 11:49 pm
@oralloy,
No defence?


Mindless and amoral cretin you are.

Changing your name?

Of course, that is what Oralloy already means to anyone cleverer and more ethical than the dumbest US redneck cretin.


Faugh.

You disgust me.

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 12:18 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Do YOU wish to actually discuss the article, McG? I doubt it.

If you don't, then leave the thread.


Don't leave the thread, McG. Continue to illustrate just what good little American you are.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 12:19 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
No defence?


Mindless and amoral cretin you are.

Changing your name?

Of course, that is what Oralloy already means to anyone cleverer and more ethical than the dumbest US redneck cretin.


Faugh.

You disgust me.


You're being pretty childish. That is unusual for you.

Oh well.
JTT
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 12:23 am
@oralloy,
No, some people just tire of those who pervert what the USA is supposed to be about.

Dlowan was right on the mark. You are an amoral and mindless cretin, as is Brandon, McG, Woiyo, ... .
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 12:27 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
No, some people just tire of those who pervert what the USA is supposed to be about.

Dlowan was right on the mark. You are an amoral and mindless cretin, as is Brandon, McG, Woiyo, ... .


Liar.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:08 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
I should note the fact that there is more logic in my little toe than you'll ever possess.

Based on your argument here, you must be thinking with your toes.

Quote:

Torture is illegal, but there is nothing illegal about us detaining captured enemy soldiers.
Detaining them wasn't the problem. It was torturing them after they were detained that was the problem. The courts have said as much. I thought you just said you were arguing from logic.

Quote:
As for "having it done to us", it has always been done to American soldiers, and no one ever does anything about it. Nothing new there.

(Perhaps if the people who are upset over us torturing people would also have gotten upset when our guys were tortured, their views would actually matter now.)
Please cite those times you think the people upset about us torturing weren't upset about our guys being tortured. Your argument is BS oralloy. It is nothing but a logical fallacy. You make assumptions and then pretend your assumptions are true.

Quote:

I have no problem with Bush breaking the law to save American lives.
There lies the problem. You think Bush is above the law. You think the end justifies the means. You seem to have no respect for the US or its constitution.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:55 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

dlowan wrote:
No defence?


Mindless and amoral cretin you are.

Changing your name?

Of course, that is what Oralloy already means to anyone cleverer and more ethical than the dumbest US redneck cretin.


Faugh.

You disgust me.


You're being pretty childish. That is unusual for you.

Oh well.


If childish is expressing disgust at your irrationality, and immoral position, then I am happy to embrace childish. Of course, in mislabelling such a position, you continue the great tradition of debasement of language with weasel words.

Like:
We do not torture" meaning "we torture all right".

"We invaded to bring democracy" meaning "we invaded out of some misbegotten desire for revenge and because we felt like it while we ruthlesssly suppressed evidence from our own experts that the premise was a manipulated lie".


Quite soviet, actually...or Orwellian.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 09:57 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

Interesting fantasy.

Not likely Obama will play along though.


He doesn't have to. We have a House and Senate chock full of Dems who can get the ball rolling - and will.

Senator Whitehouse says that he intends to spend the next several years investigating the lies and abuses of the Bush administration - even if Obama doesn't want to.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/13/whitehouse-investigate-bush/

Face it - you can't ignore the law. You can't ignore the law in the name of trying to 'save lives' or any other excuse. Nobody is above the law; and your former leaders are going to find this out the hard way.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 10:12 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:



Senator Whitehouse says that he intends to spend the next several years investigating
the lies and abuses of the Bush administration - even if Obama doesn't want to.


Cyclotroll, is the beginning of Obama's secret police?
Background checks for everyone without O boy's approval?
I'm sure you'll get a reach around while they investigate you - seeing how you drink the
same Kool-Aid as O boy, but the rest of us will not be getting any special treatment.


BOHICA
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:33 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
I should note the fact that there is more logic in my little toe than you'll ever possess.

Based on your argument here, you must be thinking with your toes.


Well, the arguments I'm facing in this thread don't seem to require much effort to demolish, so why not.




parados wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Torture is illegal, but there is nothing illegal about us detaining captured enemy soldiers.


Detaining them wasn't the problem.


You may have no problem with us detaining them, but the radicals and extremists who I was arguing with in this thread don't necessarily share that view.

I didn't make that comment about "detention being OK" from out of the blue. I made it because someone listed it among our supposed "misdeeds".




parados wrote:
It was torturing them after they were detained that was the problem.


I agree.




parados wrote:
The courts have said as much.


Yes. It is always nice to have the courts side with me in my arguments against radicals and extremists.

It appears that you also side with me on the issue of our right to detain captured enemy soldiers.




parados wrote:
I thought you just said you were arguing from logic.


Yep.




parados wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
As for "having it done to us", it has always been done to American soldiers, and no one ever does anything about it. Nothing new there.

(Perhaps if the people who are upset over us torturing people would also have gotten upset when our guys were tortured, their views would actually matter now.)


Please cite those times you think the people upset about us torturing weren't upset about our guys being tortured.


WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq1991.

There are four wars where our guys were tortured pretty severely -- in some cases worse than anything we've ever done.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear any great outcry from the world about the mistreatment of our soldiers.




parados wrote:
Your argument is BS oralloy.


Nope. The truth isn't BS.



parados wrote:
It is nothing but a logical fallacy.


Nope. Pointing out the truth is not a logical fallacy.



parados wrote:
You make assumptions and then pretend your assumptions are true.


No assumptions, and no pretending.

Pointing out the truth just makes extremists uncomfortable when the truth conflicts their radical propaganda (as it invariably does), and they then start acting childish and throwing a tantrum.




parados wrote:
"Oralloy" wrote:
I have no problem with Bush breaking the law to save American lives.


There lies the problem. You think Bush is above the law.


Well, if Clinton is above the law, why not Bush?

If foreigners who torture Americans are above the law, why not Americans who torture foreigners?




parados wrote:
You think the end justifies the means.


In some cases, yes.




parados wrote:
You seem to have no respect for the US or its constitution.


Nah. I have no respect for the position that Clinton is above the law but Bush should be held accountable.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:40 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
oralloy wrote:
You're being pretty childish. That is unusual for you.

Oh well.



If childish is expressing disgust at your irrationality, and immoral position, then I am happy to embrace childish.


My position is hardly irrational.

Expressing disgust at a position that one finds immoral does not have to involve childishness.

But like I said, oh well. Maybe you'll be less childish in the next thread we cross paths in. It is certainly atypical of you.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Interesting fantasy.

Not likely Obama will play along though.


He doesn't have to. We have a House and Senate chock full of Dems who can get the ball rolling - and will.

Senator Whitehouse says that he intends to spend the next several years investigating the lies and abuses of the Bush administration - even if Obama doesn't want to.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/13/whitehouse-investigate-bush/


Congress doesn't have the power to prosecute anyone.

I don't see the leadership of the House and Senate as likely to want to devote much time to holding hearings about the Bush Administration (and only token hearings if they do devote resources to it). But regardless, no one in the Bush Administration has much to fear from such hearings.

The most likely scenario if such hearings take place is the American people will come to view the people holding the hearings as "pro-terrorist". And that would be the end of them next time they were up for election.




Cycloptichorn wrote:
Face it - you can't ignore the law.


If Clinton can, so can Bush.




Cycloptichorn wrote:
You can't ignore the law in the name of trying to 'save lives' or any other excuse.


Sure you can. All you have to do is disregard the law. Pretty easy actually.




Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nobody is above the law;


Bush is.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
and your former leaders are going to find this out the hard way.


Bush haters sort of remind me of Captain Ahab from Moby Dick......
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/24/2019 at 03:38:24