DC Tom Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I'd say it was the middle finger From the front page of the SF Chronicle this morning. Truth Commission?? Sounds a bit Orwellian to me. Oh, goody. An investigation established strictly to justify the preconceived notions behind establishing the commission. Maybe they can get Kenneth Starr to lead it, too. God, these people are !@#$ing retards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I'd say it was the middle finger From the front page of the SF Chronicle this morning. Truth Commission?? Sounds a bit Orwellian to me. And there you have it. The middle finger in the four-fingered hand in charge of the Obama ass puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 Stop trying to push me further left than I am. Comrade - hasn't it yet occurred to you why your fellow bleating sheep here on PPP haven't posted about this topic and have run for cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 That's because you're an idiot. I never said man didn't cause global warming. I said global waming is bad science and more akin to religion. It's a consistent problem in reading comprehension that you demonstrate. Including in this thread. I have to say your arguments come off sounding like a new earth creationist. They say "the science is bad", and you say "the science is bad" and you come off looking like you are on the same side. Can you fault me for that? So come out with it then. Yes or no to anthropogenic global warming? We are literally in the ticking time bomb scenario if the answer is a yes, and if you say no, then you will have contradicted "I never said man didn't cause global warming". I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I have to say your arguments come off sounding like a new earth creationist. They say "the science is bad", and you say "the science is bad" and you come off looking like you are on the same side. Can you fault me for that? They say the science is bad because they don't know the first thing about science. I say the science is bad because I do know something about the scientific method, and I can and have described how global warming has sacrificed scientific rigor for dogmatic acceptance. So come out with it then. Yes or no to anthropogenic global warming? We are literally in the ticking time bomb scenario if the answer is a yes, and if you say no, then you will have contradicted "I never said man didn't cause global warming". I'm curious. Maybe. The evidence is compelling. However, it's also primarily correlative in nature, and correlation does not equal causation; there is a ton of truly awful and misleading "evidence" out there as well; and there is enough contrary data that the possibility that the current warming trend is non-anthropogenic should be investigated. That's where your real issue lies - you (not unlike many other people) see it as a completely black-and-white issue: you either believe or you don't. It's not that black and white: admitting and researching alternatives is not denial, it's honest science (which is as good an oxymoron as you'll hear today). On the other hand, when you ask if I believe or not, you are taking science completely out of the picture. Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I can accept a maybe. I am a yes, obviously. Anyways so now the question goes to: do you not think we are better safe than sorry in regards to taking action? I think that is a fair question to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I can accept a maybe. I am a yes, obviously. Anyways so now the question goes to: do you not think we are better safe than sorry in regards to taking action? I think that is a fair question to ask. That's the several trillion dollar question. We could spend ourselves to ruin to fix something that is unfixable and the next life forms to inhabit this planet could look back either way and say "dumbasses". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 That's the several trillion dollar question. We could spend ourselves to ruin to fix something that is unfixable and the next life forms to inhabit this planet could look back either way and say "dumbasses". NSFW. He drops some F bombs, but at about the 3:30 mark you get a sense of how many of us feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Aren't the Obama sycophants going to chime in and defend their retarded friend conner? You really think this is good for the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Aren't the Obama sycophants going to chime in and defend their retarded friend conner? You really think this is good for the country? Liberals think this is so good for the country, that we need to release some visuals. Thank God we have something to keep our minds off the real problems. Way to go, Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 What needs defending in this thread? LaBillz thinks Obama has 4 fingers up his ass, and other than that everyone ready to hang Obama for treason even though no one has been convicted yet. Not that its even Obama's job to convict anyone. So Fastback speak up. What injustices in this thread need attention? And still no one has responded to my thoughts that legal opinion and advice to something illegal could potentially be seen as conspiracy to commit felony. Not that I'm for or against prosecuting these lawyers... but what I am !@#$ing for is at least looking at the possibility of such a thing. A little research never hurt anyone (except the guilty). P.S. LaBillz.. I was watching Barney Frank speak today. I'm not sure how you think that guy can be the overlord of anything. He barely can grasp the English language, much less tell anyone what to do. And Pelosi is dumber than a pile of bricks, I'd be impressed if she can get her own staff to do what she wants, much less the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 That's the several trillion dollar question. We could spend ourselves to ruin to fix something that is unfixable and the next life forms to inhabit this planet could look back either way and say "dumbasses". Not that this is the right place to discuss this ... but what about things that don't require spending? Protecting National Forest, or passing a few laws that put caps on car emissions (ya that ads a lot of time to the yearly inspection). Even just a tax discount for green companies. A few little things like that can go a long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 And still no one has responded to my thoughts that legal opinion and advice to something illegal could potentially be seen as conspiracy to commit felony. Not that I'm for or against prosecuting these lawyers... but what I am !@#$ing for is at least looking at the possibility of such a thing. A little research never hurt anyone (except the guilty). You've got to demonstrate the illegality of the policy under preexisting US law first (keeping in mind that the policy was apparently formulated with proper Congressional oversight). Basically, you would have to demonstrate that the interrogation methods used were illegal before the legal opinions were given before you could convict any lawyer for their opinion. And don't forget - no ex-post fact conviction. Congress can't pass a law saying "Now it's illegal", then accuse any of these people under it. I heard a good quote from the AG this morning, along the lines of "I'm not going to criminalize differences in political policy. But if there's a crime, I'll investigate it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Anyways so now the question goes to: do you not think we are better safe than sorry in regards to taking action?I think that is a fair question to ask. No, because protecting the environment is more than reducing carbon emissions. One example: the environmental expense of biofuels, in terms of land usage and soil depletion, outweighs the perceived (and largely false) benefits for global warming. Again, you insist on it being black-and-white. It's not. I'm all for not polluting the planet. I do NOT, however, believe CO2 emissions control is the end-all and be-all of environmentalism. As I've said repeatedly (and you've ignored), the environmental movement has been hijacked by the anti-CO2 movement, to the detriment of both. Narrow-minded zealotry is rarely a good solution for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Not that this is the right place to discuss this ... but what about things that don't require spending? Protecting National Forest, or passing a few laws that put caps on car emissions (ya that ads a lot of time to the yearly inspection). Even just a tax discount for green companies. A few little things like that can go a long way. Caps on car emissions requires no spending? Do you have any idea what R&D costs are? And any time you get the government involved it's going to cost something. And what is a green company anyway? I was trying to sign up for trade shows and they were giving discounts to "green" companies. None of them could tell me what I needed to do to be considered a green company. I actually asked on guy if we were envious of another company would that work. Damn libs have no sense of humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 That's the several trillion dollar question. We could spend ourselves to ruin to fix something that is unfixable and the next life forms to inhabit this planet could look back either way and say "dumbasses". By all means, let's go gentle into that good night. We can save our pennies instead of raging against the dying of the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 You've got to demonstrate the illegality of the policy under preexisting US law first (keeping in mind that the policy was apparently formulated with proper Congressional oversight). Basically, you would have to demonstrate that the interrogation methods used were illegal before the legal opinions were given before you could convict any lawyer for their opinion. And don't forget - no ex-post fact conviction. Congress can't pass a law saying "Now it's illegal", then accuse any of these people under it. I heard a good quote from the AG this morning, along the lines of "I'm not going to criminalize differences in political policy. But if there's a crime, I'll investigate it." Ok sure. Would previous precedent set by prior convictions against waterboarding count as demonstrating that the interrogation methods used were illegal before the legal opinions were given? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Ok sure. Would previous precedent set by prior convictions against waterboarding count as demonstrating that the interrogation methods used were illegal before the legal opinions were given? Depends on the prior convictions. If you can find a conviction of an officer following a policy established through proper means that he thus thought was legal, then yes. If, on the other hand, you're talking about the victor's justice after World War II...you've got to be kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Depends on the prior convictions. If you can find a conviction of an officer following a policy established through proper means that he thus thought was legal, then yes. If, on the other hand, you're talking about the victor's justice after World War II...you've got to be kidding. Anyways here is your precedent. 1983, They thought it was legal. They were convicted. Also, the Bush lawyers knew about this case. http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/854-doj-p...-prisoners.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Hold up, thought was legal? Can you clarify that? So if he thought it was illegal and then waterboarded, he's not guilty? Is there an actual domestic law that says waterboarding is illegal? Or was it policy? Was the change in policy legal? Were the legal opinions justifying the change in policy demonstrably illegal? (The paradoxical nature of that question alone should bring all discussion to a screeching halt - an illegal legal opinion?) Did the people executing orders against that policy have any reason to believe or capacity to understand that the new policy was illegal (presuming it was)? Hell, you can't even distinguish between policy and law. You think someone staff seargant in the field is going to? Once again, you can't see anything other than black-and-white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts