VABills Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 You'd be wrong. The people that post on PPP are a self-selected to care more than the average American. I'd wager on average we're more informed here than most of the electorate. Really !@#$ing scary, if you think about it. Really you think after readingthis one: Yes, Obama goes way back with those people. He's been friends with them for years. Buddy buddy, closed door deals and all that. I'd love to know where you got that theory from, Seeing as how two of those people endorsed Clinton during the primaries. And I do not think Obama and Pelosi even knew each other before the election. My opinion is that Obama hates Pelosi. Her very existence and far left stance really kills the bi-partisanship he's trying to achieve. (example: http://www.newsweek.com/id/186961). She's crazy far left and he's a centrist. They do not get along well. I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Check out the Daily Show http://www.thedailyshow.com/ and watch Balzheimers Disease (06:56) Dick Cheney and Karl Rove suffer from an illness that gives them the balls to attack the Obama administration. Or the full April 22nd show at http://www.hulu.com/videos/search?query=Th...ith+Jon+Stewart (conner @ Apr 22 2009, 09:11 PM) My opinion is that Obama hates Pelosi. Another reason to like Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Check out the Daily Show http://www.thedailyshow.com/ and watch Balzheimers Disease (06:56) Dick Cheney and Karl Rove suffer from an illness that gives them the balls to attack the Obama administration. Or the full April 22nd show at http://www.hulu.com/videos/search?query=Th...ith+Jon+Stewart Another reason to like Obama That's his opinion. He has shown he has no concept of reality in numerous threads. he also is probably saying that only to throw us off. I don't believe that he really believes that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 That's his opinion. He has shown he has no concept of reality in numerous threads. he also is probably saying that only to throw us off. I don't believe that he really believes that. Sorry, Who has no concept of reality? Your message isn't that clear. Me? Does Obama and or Jon Stewart post here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...wer-canard.html Here is a guy that refutes that claim... for what it's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...wer-canard.html Here is a guy that refutes that claim... for what it's worth. Who's to say they're not talking about two completely differnt plots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Who's to say they're not talking about two completely differnt plots? Do you say that because you have reason to think they are two plots... or because you want them to be two plots? Anyways, all I wanted to do was spread a little doubt on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Do you say that because you have reason to think they are two plots... or because you want them to be two plots? Anyways, all I wanted to do was spread a little doubt on this. I have reason to believe they are two plots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Do you say that because you have reason to think they are two plots... or because you want them to be two plots? Anyways, all I wanted to do was spread a little doubt on this. Spread a little doubt on a statement that can't be confirmed anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I have heard today that Pelosi and several others were taken on a tour of the offshore interrogation facilities several years ago and briefed on all the methods used. No one raised any objections. F'n hyprocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I have heard today that Pelosi and several others were taken on a tour of the offshore interrogation facilities several years ago and briefed on all the methods used. No one raised any objections. F'n hyprocrite. She's gonna look funny in the courtroom. I'm taking bets on what happens to the Bible when she puts her hand on it when she's sworn in. Pelosi denies it, but Boehner says "Uhhh...she was there," as does Hoekstra, ranking member of the House intelligence panel. "All of this information was downloaded to congressional leaders of both parties with no objections being raised," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters today, specifically citing Pelosi as someone who received the briefings. "Not a word was raised at the time, not one word." Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich), the ranking member of the House intelligence panel, argued the same point in an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal. Hoekstra article here. It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 She's gonna look funny in the courtroom. I'm taking bets on what happens to the Bible when she puts her hand on it when she's sworn in. Pelosi denies it, but Boehner says "Uhhh...she was there," as does Hoekstra, ranking member of the House intelligence panel. Hoekstra article here. Why does an image of Austin Powers & the swedish pump enlarger pop into the picture? "I swear, I wasn't there baby." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Why does an image of Austin Powers & the swedish pump enlarger pop into the picture? "I swear, I wasn't there baby." I'm sure when she's on the stand, you'll hear the lawyers saying "That's a maaan, baby." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Back from the dead! Certainly not a smoking gun, but one man's view on the efficacy of torture. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/13/int...ring/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 you beat me too it in this thread... WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The contentious debate over so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" took center stage on Capitol Hill on Wednesday as a former FBI agent involved in the questioning of terror suspects testified that such techniques -- including waterboarding -- are ineffective. Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent from 1997 to 2005, told members of a key Senate Judiciary subcommittee that such "techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda." His remarks followed heated exchanges between committee members with sharply differing views on both the value of the techniques and the purpose of the hearing itself. So which Agency has it's head up it's collective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent from 1997 to 2005, told members of a key Senate Judiciary subcommittee that such "techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda." So does this mean that 'enhanced interrogation techniques' are un-patriotic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Define: torture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Define: torture Reading anything posted by BillsFan-4-Ever, for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Back from the dead! Certainly not a smoking gun, but one man's view on the efficacy of torture. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/13/int...ring/index.html Ok, so if enhanced interrogation doesn't work, why has it been used as a method of gaining information for centuries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Ali Soufan. I remembered that name from an article/articles I had read about him. Here's one of them........Good read http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/1...on_onlineonly01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts