RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 7:30:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Firm I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around "good faith effort".What exactly does that entail....how do Constitutional lawyers,Justice Dept Appointees make a "good faith effort" to write an opinion and still get it wrong.
There did seem to be a lot of "effort" put into the "torture memos"...none of it would seem to have included "good faith"
From where I sit the only way to look at the work product of Yoo,Bybee and Bradbury is a conscious effort to reach a finding of legality where there was none.An attempt to boiler plate illegal activity with a spurious before the fact opinion.
Shameless behavior to say the least....criminal at worst....and that is what an investigation must determine.

Tried and condemned already, huh?

I guess that is the same standard of "proof" that a Congressional inquiry will also use.

You know ... have the verdict already decided before you hold the hearings, and use the hearings to gather just the right evidence, and hear the opinion of primarily only those people who already support the forgone conclusion.

Firm

PS.  Could you guys please use some blank spaces between your paragraphs?



rulemylife -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 7:31:17 PM)

Well, your statement seemed pretty clear, and then your answer stated  the exact opposite.

So maybe you can point out where I misinterpreted.



rulemylife -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 7:39:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

I doubt that he is, but it is fun to watch people foaming at the mouths over it. They just can't seem to get that man out of their heads. I still wonder if they dream about him at night and who is on top.


You mean between Bush and Cheney?

Definitely Cheney.

Bush was always his bitch boy.



slvemike4u -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 7:45:56 PM)

I'm not sitting on a jury,given the information I have and barring some contradictory new information....this is my opinion.



And has been my opinion from the beginning....nothing I have learned consequently has changed that opinion.....till I'm sitting in actual judgement ,my opinion means little.....other than to allow you to claim there is no legitimate way to get to the truth...without it being a partisan witch hunt


Seems convenient to state these inquiries can not be made for fear of partisanship.In effect you would create a class above the law...as long as it can be wrapped in partisan politics...neither side dare prosecute the other for fear of retribution.


Simple answer to this would be to govern legally and let the chips fall where they may....




p.s. was that enough space between para's



FirmhandKY -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 7:53:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Well, your statement seemed pretty clear, and then your answer stated  the exact opposite.

So maybe you can point out where I misinterpreted.


I really have no interest in feeding your obsessions.

Try reading what I wrote again, and see if you can discern the differences between what I originally wrote, and the question you continue to ask me (which I've twice answered quite clearly).

Perhaps you can ask philosophy to explain it to you.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 8:01:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I'm not sitting on a jury,given the information I have and barring some contradictory new information....this is my opinion.

And the inquiry that you support would not impanel a jury, either. 


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And has been my opinion from the beginning....nothing I have learned consequently has changed that opinion.....till I'm sitting in actual judgement ,my opinion means little.....other than to allow you to claim there is no legitimate way to get to the truth...without it being a partisan witch hunt

So you admit, that you personally believe in guilty until proven innocent in this case?

As for being a partisan witch hunt ... tell me, what are the rules of procedure for a Congressional Committee?  Even a "bi-partisan" committee?

Who is the judge in such a case?  Who will determine what witnesses are called?  Who will determine the verdict?  Who will determine the sentence?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Seems convenient to state these inquiries can not be made for fear of partisanship.In effect you would create a class above the law...as long as it can be wrapped in partisan politics...neither side dare prosecute the other for fear of retribution.

Simple answer to this would be to govern legally and let the chips fall where they may....

What has the law to do with any of the proposals that have been advanced to "try Bush for war crimes"?





































quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

p.s. was that enough space between para's

Yes

Firm



rulemylife -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 8:03:47 PM)

I can't speak for him, but he asked the same question of you.  Your answer completely evaded his question as well.

As for my question, you answered it twice by saying no, with no elaboration or explanation of the original comment.

I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse here, if you misspoke just say so, but don't try to deny what your original comment said.



slvemike4u -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 8:24:34 PM)

Firm..it is an opinion ...not held to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt...just an opinion that apparently others share .
And I certainly am not threatening armed insurrection if there is no enquiry......unlike some claims made by others in the event there are such hearings.[8|]



FirmhandKY -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 9:02:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I can't speak for him, but he asked the same question of you.  Your answer completely evaded his question as well.

As for my question, you answered it twice by saying no, with no elaboration or explanation of the original comment.

I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse here, if you misspoke just say so, but don't try to deny what your original comment said.



Philosophy and I engage in actual discussions.  If he requests clarification of my response to him, I'm inclined to provided it.

Not so with you.

However, here is no doubt the quote you are still questioning:
It would be a break in the American contract about an "honorable opposition", and convince many - including me - that nothing other than active and armed resistance would be required to return this nation to a semblance of normality.

Please point out to me where I "advocated" armed insurrection. 

Your questions did not address anything I said in the statement quoted above, did not actually add anything to the discussion, and were both simple yes or no questions, to which I appropriately responded.

Perhaps if you read closely, with an open mind, and absent preconceived notions,  you'll better be able to understand what I've written, and where your particular error in understanding occurs.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 9:07:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Firm..it is an opinion ...not held to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt...just an opinion that apparently others share .

Some people may share the belief that the moon is made out of green cheese.  They can even appoint a committee and pass a law that it is a "fact".

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
And I certainly am not threatening armed insurrection if there is no enquiry......unlike some claims made by others in the event there are such hearings.[8|]

See my response above to rule.  Where, exactly did I "threaten" anything, or anyone?

Firm



TheHeretic -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 9:56:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

the question does have some legitimacy. In my opinion the best way to put this question to rest is to have some form of enquiry into it. If it was possible to give Clinton a fair shake, then it is equally possible to give Bush a fair shake. He and Cheney may end up vindicated.......



      It would set a precedent I'm not so sure we want in the U.S., Phil.  C'mon, just a little enquiry into the doings of the previous administration?  No bloodlust?  No screaming headlines?  What happens when the innocent little enquiry finds some criminal act in the barrel of questionable ones? 

Analysis article with some other egregious examples, if you have a moment

      Most of these things that wind up as scandals start out as "neat ideas" that just don't go as planned. President Obama is a man with many ideas, he will face many unexpected and dangerous challenges in these times.  He has come to this position of awesome power and responsibility, without having ever had any at all to temper him a little.  What are the chances he might over reach when a new idea goes horribly wrong?  The Republicans will be back, and they will be pissed.  Want to bet a Euro they could find something on him after four or eight years?



Owner59 -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 10:29:33 PM)

precedent shmecedent  You guys will do whatever you want when you want, anyway,irregardless of whether the threats are affective.Why should liberals fold under your threats.What are ya gonna do,threaten impeachment?Keep your threats.

You guys went after Clinton for years and while he was in office no less.Bloodlust for him would be a nice way to describe your party`s conduct.

When Clinton ordered attacks on bin-laden ,your silly party would chant"no war for Monica"no war for Monica"

al-queda couldn`t have had a better friend and helper than the republicans, leading up to the attacks with your impeachment.

Mission accomplished.




philosophy -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 10:35:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

However, i think there are one or two areas where it isn't at all clear his administration made anything close to a 'good faith effort' in order to stay on the right side of the law. The big one is, of course, torture....or enhanced interrogation, or whatever euphemism suits you best.

As this thread attest, you are participating in the redefinition of the interrogations as torture, because it furthers the political agenda that you prefer.



...well, to be fair...if there was a jury here it'd still be out on that point. Which euphemism best reflects the reality? Quite frankly i don't know, however i'm not inclined to rule either 'torture' or 'enhanced interrogation' out at this point. There is strong circumstantial evidence that the former was employed. The previous administration prefers the latter....and, who knows, they may be right. Point is, there are questions to be asked that haven't really been answered. Perhaps Cheney has done a dis-service here with his curmudgeonly attitude on this point. He really does look like he has something to hide, and it is not impossible that his demeanour is misleading. Which is why i want an enquiry of some sort.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

There is a legitimate question over its legality and the last administrations desire to put that policy in place. You may not like it, but the question does have some legitimacy. In my opinion the best way to put this question to rest is to have some form of enquiry into it. If it was possible to give Clinton a fair shake, then it is equally possible to give Bush a fair shake. He and Cheney may end up vindicated.......

That all kinda sounds good and reasonable, except for the fact that the "inquiry" will be in a political arena, not a legal arena.

Firm



...fair enough, make it a legal inquiry, not a political one. Get the Supreme Court on it, or someone precisely as non-partisan as Kenneth Starr.



philosophy -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 10:42:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

     Most of these things that wind up as scandals start out as "neat ideas" that just don't go as planned. 


...that's a damn good point and one which i'd agree with. Now i seriously don't believe that Bush and Cheney cared about the things i care about, but they did care about something. They (probably) thought they were acting in the best interests of their country. Just as Obama is (probably) doing now.

However, i feel it is important to recognise that a precedent will be set either way here. Either the precedent is that an administration may be held accountable after it left office; or that an administration gets a free pass after it leaves office.  From my pov i see more problems long term with the latter than the former. The former acts as a potential check on the unbridled use of power that nobody wants.



ienigma777 -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/4/2009 11:20:09 PM)

Hello; there is a book out....by Vincent Bulosie (spelling)...entitled 'The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder';now I'm not exactly sure of the title either, but it's close enough for any interested to search and obtain the book. It can be had at a very good discount from Edward Hamilton Bookseller.
Now,MarsBonfire; I read somewhere Bush has created some Presidential Papers which state into Law that He and his cohorts in this Iraq and torture debacle are never to be held accountable.

If that be the case, what the hell are these people talking about?

Newspeak is nothing new...you invade a country.....you liberate the people from it's despotic leadership.

Pre-emptive strike...you attack the enemy before they attack you...(or are thinking about attacking you, actually you just think they might attack you).

Condolezza Rice is a highly paid account executive at the William Morris Ad Agency, Bush is blitz on his Jack Daniels, Cheney is counting his Trillions of dollars....no one is accountable for anything...and we have a discussion here.

From the past, as I recall, the majority of posters on CM supported Bush et al, and vehemtly blamed, mocked and attacked clinton, (for everything).....but now, since the epoch of the Bush failure, Being the worst president in US history, and as for a world leader he is the Worst in World History.

Bush has bailed out, rescued, giving the richest of the rich taxpayer money...is not being held accountable for anything.

Chrysler who is only 80% american owned, american parent owning company being Cheribus Holdings, generating over 300 billion in revenues per year...and Chrysler is bankrupted?, as is GM, ....... and we are having a newspeak discussion.



thishereboi -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/5/2009 3:43:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

I doubt that he is, but it is fun to watch people foaming at the mouths over it. They just can't seem to get that man out of their heads. I still wonder if they dream about him at night and who is on top.


You mean between Bush and Cheney?

Definitely Cheney.

Bush was always his bitch boy.



Thank you so much for that image. You do realize its going to take watching at least 3 episodes of Xena to get that out of my head.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/5/2009 5:42:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...well, to be fair...if there was a jury here it'd still be out on that point. Which euphemism best reflects the reality? Quite frankly i don't know, however i'm not inclined to rule either 'torture' or 'enhanced interrogation' out at this point.
I'm not sure there is one that both sides in the discussion would accept.  I was just pointing out that the very words we use frame and shape our beliefs (which was the point of the thread).


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

There is strong circumstantial evidence that the former was employed. The previous administration prefers the latter....and, who knows, they may be right. Point is, there are questions to be asked that haven't really been answered.

And what questions would those be, exactly?


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

Perhaps Cheney has done a dis-service here with his curmudgeonly attitude on this point. He really does look like he has something to hide, and it is not impossible that his demeanour is misleading. Which is why i want an enquiry of some sort.
If being curmudgeonly is a sign of guilt, then I'd been convicted of something a long time ago. [8D][:)]


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...fair enough, make it a legal inquiry, not a political one. Get the Supreme Court on it, or someone precisely as non-partisan as Kenneth Starr.

The time to have made it a legal inquiry was at any time during the previous 8 years in which the legality was questioned.

Why did not someone file a successful lawsuit previous to Obama's election? 

Well, the fact is, that during the last couple of years of the Bush admin, there was a political debate about the issue in Congress, and new guidelines were put into place.  This was done - correctly in my opinion - through the legislative process.  And it is something that I can accept, even if I believe the results to be wrong-headed, and dangerous in the long term to my country.

I have no major problem with any individual who believes that they were tortured suing the US government over the supposed facts of their case (even if they win).  I do have a problem with Congressional members - none of who were tortured (except by the fact that their party didn't hold the reigns of the executive at the time) attempting to use any process to punish their opponents after the issue was resolved through correct political action - including the last elections.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/5/2009 5:47:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Analysis article with some other egregious examples, if you have a moment



Excellent article, Heretic.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/5/2009 7:45:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Hello; there is a book out....by Vincent Bulosie (spelling)...entitled 'The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder';now I'm not exactly sure of the title either, but it's close enough for any interested to search and obtain the book.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi (and at Amazon).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Now,MarsBonfire; I read somewhere Bush has created some Presidential Papers which state into Law that He and his cohorts in this Iraq and torture debacle are never to be held accountable.
Cite?  Quote?  Link?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

If that be the case, what the hell are these people talking about?
Good question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Newspeak is nothing new...you invade a country.....you liberate the people from it's despotic leadership.
Were the peoples of Iraq under the control of a despotic leader prior to the intervention of the US?

Are they currently under the control of a despotic leader?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Pre-emptive strike...you attack the enemy before they attack you...(or are thinking about attacking you, actually you just think they might attack you).
Iraq had, for over ten years, attacked American troops, violated its ceasefire agreement with the American-lead Coalition, attempted the assasination of a sitting American President, supported Islamic terrorism, attacked it's neighbors without provocation ... damn, should I go on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Condolezza Rice is a highly paid account executive at the William Morris Ad Agency,
No she's not.  She's a client of the William Morris Agency. As a client, she pays them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Bush is blitz on his Jack Daniels,
Cite?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Cheney is counting his Trillions of dollars....no one is accountable for anything...and we have a discussion here.
Wikipedia: Cheney's net worth, estimated to be between $30 million and $100 million

Got a few zeros wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

From the past, as I recall, the majority of posters on CM supported Bush et al, and vehemtly blamed, mocked and attacked clinton, (for everything) .....
Total fabrication, without evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

but now, since the epoch of the Bush failure, Being the worst president in US history, and as for a world leader he is the Worst in World History.
The worst leader in history?  Worst than Stalin?  Worst than Pol Pot?  Worse than Neville Chamberlain?  Worst than Saddam Hussein?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Bush has bailed out, rescued, giving the richest of the rich taxpayer money...is not being held accountable for anything.
And Obama's bail-outs and assuming control of American companies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Chrysler who is only 80% american owned, american parent owning company being Cheribus Holdings, generating over 300 billion in revenues per year...and Chrysler is bankrupted?, as is GM, ....... and we are having a newspeak discussion.
We are having a newspeak discussion because a large minority of people don't only don't know the facts, but don't want to know the facts, and some power hungry political operatives use their willful ignorance to gain power by redefining reality.

Firm



Owner59 -> RE: Reeducating The Masses Through NewSpeak (5/5/2009 7:55:51 AM)

Past vs Future.....

If we let criminals get away with murder ,treachery and maleficence,what future do we have?

More criminality treachery and maleficence.

Add unchecked presidential powers to that and the nation is at risk.

If we let bush -cheney get away scott free,what will the next "dick" do to our nation?It would certainly embolden the next set of bad faith players to be worse .

Our future depends on correcting our mistakes and preventling them.

And any time conservatives try to give history lessons about what the Founders wanted,look for the hidden agenda.This one being quashing even an investigation.These creeps don`t even want to know or inquire,much less take action.

This "don`t investigate us or else we`ll make life hell for you next time" bull shit is a lame bluff.Republicans are going to do those things anyway.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875