Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck. - Page 274

Not Me · 10-20-2004, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
My last dealer moved away last week.

Life sucks, and then you die.

Don't you have teenage kids? I am sure that they can hook you up. If not, I am sure that Sebby can.

bilmore · 10-20-2004, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Pot to kettle, day 2.

You fail to differentiate between "scare tactics" and "Shameless scare tactics".

bilmore · 10-20-2004, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Don't you have teenage kids? I am sure that they can hook you up. If not, I am sure that Sebby can.

I don't want any of the drugs that Sebby is taking. They make you insert "fuck" into all of your logical arguments. My preferred drugs make me insert "oh, and do you have any Twinkees" into my arguments. I think my choice is less threatening.

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-20-2004, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
that wasn't a rambo movie, what do you mean by this? And your disconnect between saying 1) we should have caught more and 2) it is ok we had to let go those we did catch is stunning, and telling.

Your blather on this point is tiring. Name any terrorist or al Qaeda figure whom "we had to let go." If you can, name one who matters. Or shut up.

S_A_M

Not Bob · 10-20-2004, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
You fail to differentiate between "scare tactics" and "Shameless scare tactics".

Ah, good point. I prefer shameless, because shame is, well, shameful.

bilmore · 10-20-2004, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Or shut up.

We all agreed, this is uncivil.

bilmore · 10-20-2004, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Ah, good point. I prefer shameless, because shame is, well, shameful.

If one thinks a point is true, can it be shamefull (or was it shameless)?

I agree with that statement. Should I feel shame?

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-20-2004, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Your blather on this point is tiring. Name any terrorist or al Qaeda figure whom "we had to let go." If you can, name one who matters. Or shut up.

S_A_M

Wasn't there a story this week that seven (?) people we released from Gitmo returned to Afghanistan and took up arms against us there? That said, if I'd been held under those conditions for that long, I might be inspired to take up arms against someone, even if I hadn't before.

bilmore · 10-20-2004, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Wasn't there a story this week that seven (?) people we released from Gitmo returned to Afghanistan and took up arms against us there? That said, if I'd been held under those conditions for that long, I might be inspired to take up arms against someone, even if I hadn't before.

People held in prison are more likely to become criminals, and so we should simply use probation.

Say_hello_for_me · 10-20-2004, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
We all agreed, this is uncivil.

And, just to answer the question, Yahoo news has had articles for at least two days saying Pakistan has launched a massive search for one of our former detainees. He is a former Taliban commander who was released, went back to work, and is responsible for the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers working on a dam project. They were both executed.

As for you Mr. Bilmore, maaaaaaaaaaaaaa they're teasing me again!

He(referring to your post two pages ago)llo

Say_hello_for_me · 10-20-2004, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
those conditions

What, a seaside cottage in warm climes, with soothing lefty Rage Against The Machine played at parties?

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-20-2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
We all agreed, this is uncivil.

But . . . . I posted a non-partisan article today!

S_A_M

SlaveNoMore · 10-20-2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
Wasn't there a story this week that seven (?) people we released from Gitmo returned to Afghanistan and took up arms against us there? That said, if I'd been held under those conditions for that long, I might be inspired to take up arms against someone, even if I hadn't before.

The families of any soldiers harmed by these 7 should sue the ACLU for fighting for their release.

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-20-2004, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Wasn't there a story this week that seven (?) people we released from Gitmo returned to Afghanistan and took up arms against us there? That said, if I'd been held under those conditions for that long, I might be inspired to take up arms against someone, even if I hadn't before.

I've heard of that happening. I don't regard Taliban foot-soldiers as counting.

If folks were released from Gitmo, its because they were judged to have been innocent when they went in, and/or judged to have no further useful information, and/or judged to be no longer a threat to the U.S.

Bitch about that judgment if you like, Hank but don't pretend we "had to let them go." (Particularly in some eay that implies it was the fault of the "left".)

Or tell me, should every one sent to Gitmo stay there forever, regardless? I think we already had this argument (BB and I), and SCOTUS sez that I won.

S_A_M

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-20-2004, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The families of any soldiers harmed by these 7 should sue the ACLU for fighting for their release.

Were you hung over when your torts professor talked about causation?