blzrul

So if there was no torture, there would be no photographs. That your pea-brain is incapable of grasping the connection is a prime example of why the GnOP is completely irrelevant.

You turkeys. You don't get it. What's going to happen is the court will rule to release the photographs. People will be aghast when they see them. Obama will THEN be able to say HEY I told you I didn't want then to be released, I TRIED to protect our miliary from any backlash that may occur, and you should have listened to me. And oh by the way if something worse happens...well, he didn't advocate the torture, and he didn't advocate sharing the torture photos. I would like to think the he reversed his decision because he got to see more of the photos ... a handful, yeah ok, write it off as some nutjobs and move on. But it sounds like there are quite a few, and they're gonna be ugly. This is one of those lose-lose situations, which HE didn't really create because HE didn't authorize torture. The truth is probably somewhere in between - I imagine that I would be tempted to release them all just to make Bush and Cheney look bad. I think he's really trying to stay away from that kind of sh--, unlike Uncle Dick. But by the same token the politician in him is hedging his bets.

I would imagine there are some pretty incendiary photos in there. But he didn't order them withheld, he ordered the attorneys to object to their release. The ACLU is already filing to get them released. And I imagine eventually some will be released, and some will be withheld. Obama's point that there was abuse, and it was bad, is being made by his decision to withhold them - without letting the rest of the world see them. I personally don't really care if they come out, or not. I won't look at them any more than I want to hear the audio tapes of that freaking Colgan Air plane coming down in Clarence. At least this President is letting us see all the dead soldiers' caskets coming home instead of pretending they didn't exist. Those are all the photos we need to remind us that war sucks.

I choose to believe that you're just trolling here because even the wildest conspiracy theorist wouldn't have come up with this one. But, have fun.

Uh isn't Barry Bonds up on charges? and Roger Clemens is not?

This one's for you wingnuts who have got to be dying over all this gay marriage" (the world has not ended yet by the way). Yeah, it's off-topic but this whole thread is just another name-calling debacle anyway and I thought this was hysterical. Guys, and crabs. What a combo.

They forgot what it's like to be in the minority, and they don't handle it well. Seriously though in many cases there is actually agreement on some issues. It's just the outliers that F things up. Wait for it....wait for it....wait for it....

And another thoughtful meaningful contribution. You never disappoint.

So if the Columbine Killers had taken over the school and clearly had guns and bombs and the process capability to kill people, you'd have objected if the mayor said "take them out before they hurt someone!". You really are a dumbass. Do you realize how stupid you sound?

A lot of people complained that Bush didn't address the country often enough. So maybe these guys should just consider all the money they SAVED for 8 years and offset this against that. And enough people watch "cable" stations anyway so if the networks say no he can go on those channels. And then post it after the fact on Youtube.

Cancelled that. Don't care much about financial news. Boring. New York Times will do just fine.

Because they're criminals and they hijacked a ship under the America flag and they had it coming.

I remember as a little kid in Catholic school the nuns told us that the Chinese would get us and torture us with Chinese water torture or bamboo under our fingernails until we denied Jesus... It was torture then. I must have missed the ruling that made it not torture.

Ah but fresh from enjoying Stacy Keach in "Frost Nixon" I have to remind you that when the President does something [that would normally be considered illegal] it's not illegal. At least Nixon said it more concisely that Condi "Warrior Princess" Rice.

Newspapers are dinosauers run by dead dinosauers. Case in point: the Seattle PI finally folds, turning over all its current subs to the Seattle Times. We're now a one-newspaper town. Flush with this huge increase in subscribers and associated $$$, the Seattle Times decides to crappify its publication by cutting down on content. The features are now adverts. To my total and complete disgust, there are more letters in the SPORTS pages than in the 1/2 page Opinion section. When my "subscription" expires I will not review. I'll pay 3x to get a real paper delivered. I read quite a bit of news online, of course, but I enjoy having a newspaper to go with my morning coffee. It's a habit I will not willingly give up, but the papers themselves will probably force me to do just that.

And it took you how long to realize this? People have been boycotting stuff they hate for as long as I can recall and I am sure it started way before I was born. It's a simple, proven effective concept. That is, for example, why there are streets named after Cesar Chavez all over the place. Fact is the American people want bread and circuses and that's what they've got. They just don't care enough to boycott this stuff - if they did it would be done. This is nothing new, it's happened throughout recorded history and probably outside that as well. I hope I don't need to tell you the end result if things don't change. I'm sure DCT will be happy to do that.

Without Sarah Palin, John McCain might have actually won. She scared the hell out of a lot of people and make them question McCain's judgement. McCain is not what I'd call liberal but I always gave him credit for being willing to work in a bipartisan manner even when it pissed off his party.

Well we're one step closer, as Joe the Plumber bolts. Actually the TIME article that is linked to this blog is pretty interesting. If the GnoP really is that committed to the far right, we won't be having them to kick around for awhile.

Before, or after, the Captain jumped into the sea to try to escape? Before, or after, the Navy provided food and water to the 3 pirates and hostage? Before, or after, the Navy convinced the pirates to allow a tow rope be attached? Before, or after, the Navy quite cunningly shortened that rope, bit by bit, pulling the lifeboat closer to the Bainbridge? The way your peabrain seems to see it, the Navy saw the gun put to Capt Phillips' back, called Pres O and asked permission to fire. Of course that's bull sh--. They asked him for permission to use their best judgement to handle the situation, and he said yes. I wonder once again where you were when Reagan bombed civilians and Bush invaded sovereign nations. Of course, if you want the last word go right ahead. Even your fellow wingnuts aren't defending you.

Well then I'll look forward to the Bush/Cheney investigation for all those dead Iraqis and US soldiers over a trumped-up war. And don't tell me that Bush didn't think people would actually DIE in his war. Even HE isn't that stupid.

So, first, you need to look very long before you find Obama's specific "order to KILL". He authorized the armed forces to take the steps necessary to release the hostage. I can't find anywhere - except on wingnut discussion boards - quoting anyone, including Obama, as issuing an order to kills. Second, chew on this from the grand poobah of conservatism, and tell me how hard you'd push to investigate HIM: "The "madman" leader of Libya, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, had declared that any U.S. plane that came within 200 miles of the coast of Libya, "The Line of Death," would be shot down. International law said a country's border was only 12 miles off the coast. Before the exercises began, in international waters, the Navy asked the president in the Oval Office what the rules of engagement were. "Our pilots are free to shoot back at anyone who fired at them," Reagan answered. "What about 'hot pursuit,' " a Navy admiral asked. "Suppose the Libyan planes shoot at ours and then flee back into Libyan territory. Do you authorize us to follow them?" "You can follow them back into their own damn hangars if you have to!" Reagan responded." Now, obviously different situations but these guys were armed, and threatening American life. The current President empowered the military. Unfortunately, they had to act. Fortunately, they were empowered to do so, which protects THEM. You people screaming for an investigation of the President are daring to impugn our military personnel, to with the US Navy? How dare you. The President trusted them to do the right thing, and they did.

Well the business I run is more than $50m quarterly and there are 15 of us. None are union.

Well somehow when I think "entrepreneur" I think "small business" which is actually a large part of the backbone of America and unless you define a small business as having thousands of employees, I don't think there are union issues there. Depending on your industry, SMB is typically 50 employees or less.

That just proves that we Christians have progressed from the practices of hundreds of years ago when we did all sorts of bad things to "infidels" and other non-Christians. So, since we've for the most part passed that, there's some hope that eventually there will be a corresponding drop in extremism of newer (relatively) religions such as Islam.

Last I knew, employees had to vote on whether to unionize. It has nothing to do with a president.