Chef Jim Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Maybe I'm the only one who finds this funny and interesting at the same time, but apparently the US has no problem releasing memos outlining the country's interrogation methods, and is even considering the release of interrogation photos per a request by ACLU lawyers. HOWEVER... According to the NY Post, the $300,000 photos taken of Air Force One scaring the bejeezus out of NYC are "classified" and will not be released. Glad we have our priorities straight. It's simple. Anything negative against the previous administration it's a go. Anything negative about the current administration whoa nelly. It's always been that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Maybe I'm the only one who finds this funny and interesting at the same time, but apparently the US has no problem releasing memos outlining the country's interrogation methods, and is even considering the release of interrogation photos per a request by ACLU lawyers. HOWEVER... According to the NY Post, the $300,000 photos taken of Air Force One scaring the bejeezus out of NYC are "classified" and will not be released. Glad we have our priorities straight. I think that's its own thread. But yeah it is a bit strange and suspicious.I don't quite get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I think that's its own thread. But yeah it is a bit strange and suspicious.I don't quite get it. You don't get it? Think about it for a minute...it should come to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 You don't get it? Think about it for a minute...it should come to you. ? He's a socialist terrorist muslim who wants to destroy the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 ? He's a socialist terrorist muslim who wants to destroy the country? Keeeep trying. C'mon. Wait for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 ? He's a socialist terrorist muslim who wants to destroy the country? For the first time in your life (well at least as long as I've known you) you're thinking too hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 No criminal charges likely. Source: No criminal case likely over torture memos By DEVLIN BARRETT – 37 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Department officials have stopped short of recommending criminal charges against Bush administration lawyers who wrote secret memos approving harsh interrogation techniques of terror suspects. A person familiar with the inquiry, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says investigators recommended referring two of the three lawyers to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action. The person was not authorized to discuss the inquiry. The person noted that the investigative report was still in draft form and subject to revisions. Attorney General Eric Holder also may make his own determination about what steps to take once the report has been finalized. The Justice Department notified two senators by letter that a key deadline in the inquiry expired Monday, signaling that most of the work on the matter was completed. The letter does not mention the possibility of criminal charges, nor does it name the lawyers under scrutiny. The inquiry has become a politically-loaded guessing game, with some advocating criminal charges against the lawyers and others urging that the matter be dropped. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...vaVxrQD980BRDO1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I think Pelosi's head just exploded.......eeeeexcellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 No criminal charges likely. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...vaVxrQD980BRDO1 No criminal charges. Just disbarment. The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask that state bar associations consider possible disciplinary action, including reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 No criminal charges. Just disbarment. Isn't that exactly what should happen when an investigation is done and the investigators find some troubling but not criminal elements? To send recommendations to the state bars and have them decide themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Isn't that exactly what should happen when an investigation is done and the investigators find some troubling but not criminal elements (The Bush DOJ, btw)? To send recommendations to the state bars and have them decide themselves? Pretty muted process.....somewhere John Bolton is yelling.....These men have families, these men have families, they will have to live a lifestyle doing something that might not pay as well as lawyer-ing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Isn't that exactly what should happen when an investigation is done and the investigators find some troubling but not criminal elements (The Bush DOJ, btw)? To send recommendations to the state bars and have them decide themselves? I'm sorry, but while admittedly I'm a conservative, I have a hard time understanding why this is necessary. Either grow a pair and go after the real people who asked for their input, or STFU already. Over and over and over we hear "I inherited this. That wasn't me. Not me. Not me. Not me." And then after 100 days it becomes "Look at what I did." We get it, Obama. It's not your fault. Okay? Even though you voted for the spending which created the deficit you inherited, fine. Even though you voted against a surge that actually worked, fine. You won. You're president. Just stop with the pissing and moaning about the bull sh-- job you actually begged for, STFU already, stop worrying about your legacy after 100 days and DO something other than blaming your predecessor for failures while patting yourself on for putting in motion a bunch of crap that isn't doing what you said it would do. "Oh, look at me. I saved 150,000 jobs." Yeah, right. Got it. We're all enchanted. And that guy !@#$ed up the economy... You keep telling yourself this, Skippy. I will readily admit that Bush screwed up and strayed from the core principals of conservative governing, but if you for one minute think that Bush and Bush alone is responsible for this economy than you can officially take everything you THINK you know, write it down on a piece of paper, crumble it up and shove it up the ass of a gnat. For starters, as a senator, Obama voted for a lot of the bullschiit spending that Bush did. If you were paying attention to anything other than Keith Olberman and Rachel Madcow, you'd probably be aware of this little fact. But of course, you're not one for thinking on your own, are you. I keep begging you...please, please, please....THINK FOR YOURSELF. But you can't. Which is unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Well .. fine 50% responsible? Same thing to me. I'll concede Bush is only 1/2 to blame. Still a way way larger percent of blame than goes anywhere else. What percentage of blame goes on the Bush administration (aka Cheney's administration)? What exactly did the Bush adminstration do to mess up the economy? Blame him all you want but back that up with proof of what exactly he did to put the economy in the tail spin it entered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 What exactly did the Bush adminstration do to mess up the economy? Blame him all you want but back that up with proof of what exactly he did to put the economy in the tail spin it entered. Spend a trillion on a war of choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Spend a trillion on a war of choice? So how exactly does Obama's plan to spend us out of the current recession work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 So how exactly does Obama's plan to spend us out of the current recession work? That wasn't the topic or question I addressed. But the answer is that it's going to take some time... a few years in fact... perhaps several or even many... but the investments made today in infrastucture, new reusable electricity grids, education (specifically math and science), health care reform, and especially new energies are going to create products, technologies, and small and big businesses that actually make tangible things that will help our domestic economy as well as export those new emerging technologies to the rest of the world. It remains to be seen if it will work. But it's thinking short term, midterm, and long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 That wasn't the topic or question I addressed. But the answer is that it's going to take some time... a few years in fact... perhaps several or even many... but the investments made today in infrastucture, new reusable electricity grids, education (specifically math and science), health care reform, and especially new energies are going to create products, technologies, and small and big businesses that actually make tangible things that will help our domestic economy as well as export those new emerging technologies to the rest of the world. It remains to be seen if it will work. But it's thinking short term, midterm, and long term. I agree with everything you're saying and it will work and I want it to work. Anything that will clean up the environment and more importantly make the Middle East irrelevant is very important to me. Where you and I differ is the process to make it happen. Instead of throwing billions of dollars at the process use the process of a free market to make it work. Provide incentives for companies and investors to make it work. I know that is part of the plan but I think it's too small a part compared to how involved he wants the government to be in all of this. They've just never done a great job in anything they've gotten involved in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I agree with everything you're saying and it will work and I want it to work. Anything that will clean up the environment and more importantly make the Middle East irrelevant is very important to me. Where you and I differ is the process to make it happen. Instead of throwing billions of dollars at the process use the process of a free market to make it work. Provide incentives for companies and investors to make it work. I know that is part of the plan but I think it's too small a part compared to how involved he wants the government to be in all of this. They've just never done a great job in anything they've gotten involved in. Cool. You may very well be more right than me. I don't have any idea or feeling if how the Obama administration is doing it is the right way or the wrong way. It's surely not going to work like a charm. Some stuff will be a huge waste. I don't think there is a person alive who knows the right balance between how much government should take care of stuff and how much the private sector should. It must be both, and in a perfect world it should be the private sector more than the government, but I don't think we can really trust either to do the right and most efficient thing. It's like these arguments over regulation. It must happen but you don't want too much. I understand people wanting the government to butt out of stuff but to me it just doesn't work. People and companies are greedy, and corporations are as bad as the government in almost all respects. If you decriminalized stealing from stores and banks and your neighbors, it seems to me that half the people in the country would just not do it because it's wrong, but the other half would ruin it for everyone because "stealing isn't illegal." That's why we need more government sometimes. It's like Darin says, "the only reason most people are alive is because it's illegal to shoot them." It's hysterically funny, but it's also pretty true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Cool. You may very well be more right than me. I don't have any idea or feeling if how the Obama administration is doing it is the right way or the wrong way. It's surely not going to work like a charm. Some stuff will be a huge waste. I don't think there is a person alive who knows the right balance between how much government should take care of stuff and how much the private sector should. It must be both, and in a perfect world it should be the private sector more than the government, but I don't think we can really trust either to do the right and most efficient thing. It's like these arguments over regulation. It must happen but you don't want too much. I understand people wanting the government to butt out of stuff but to me it just doesn't work. People and companies are greedy, and corporations are as bad as the government in almost all respects. If you decriminalized stealing from stores and banks and your neighbors, it seems to me that half the people in the country would just not do it because it's wrong, but the other half would ruin it for everyone because "stealing isn't illegal." That's why we need more government sometimes. It's like Darin says, "the only reason most people are alive is because it's illegal to shoot them." It's hysterically funny, but it's also pretty true. You're absoluely right people are greedy. And that is why government needs to feed that greed by giving incentives to get this stuff done. Who's going to invest venture capital if it's going to be taxed to hell when that investment realizes it's return? Who is going to purchase the stock of an new reusable energy company if the dividend (if they ever even decide to pay one) is taxed to hell or the gain is taxed to hell. Raising the taxes on the rich kills the !@#$ing golden goose. Who do you think is going to provide the money for all of this if the goose is killed? Uncle Sam that's who and it's the Democratic party that preaches this and in my mind it's not to make the world a utopia but to control everything and that is a much scarier prospect than greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Cool. You may very well be more right than me. I don't have any idea or feeling if how the Obama administration is doing it is the right way or the wrong way. It's surely not going to work like a charm. Some stuff will be a huge waste. I don't think there is a person alive who knows the right balance between how much government should take care of stuff and how much the private sector should. It must be both, and in a perfect world it should be the private sector more than the government, but I don't think we can really trust either to do the right and most efficient thing. You can always look at history and see which activities and expenditures bolstered a superpower's currency, which is a good proxy of its growth potential and underlying value. What do you think history will say about Obama's stimulus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts