The Democrat Thread

[BigSqwert]

So, the father of one of my good friends from college just threw his hat in the gubernatorial race in Minnesota.

Did you go to school with Jesse Ventura's daughter?

[Soxy]

Did you go to school with Jesse Ventura's daughter?

Ha! No, I doubt he could get re-elected.

[Balta1701]

Well, this is an interesting story. No idea how to know which parts of it are true without a hell of a lot more of an investigation.

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

 

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

 

In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

 

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”

 

Harman declined to discuss the wiretap allegations, instead issuing an angry denial through a spokesman.

 

“These claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact,” Harman said in a prepared statement. “I never engaged in any such activity. Those who are peddling these false accusations should be ashamed of themselves.”

 

It’s true that allegations of pro-Israel lobbyists trying to help Harman get the chairmanship of the intelligence panel by lobbying and raising money for Pelosi aren’t new.

 

They were widely reported in 2006, along with allegations that the FBI launched an investigation of Harman that was eventually dropped for a “lack of evidence.”

 

What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington.

 

And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.

 

Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.

[Rex Kickass]

Well, we'll go back to this... what's "torture"? And no one ever said that this guy got "beat senseless", your words, not mine. What are the negative consequences you speak of? That they recruit terrorists? Oh, wait, 3,000 people dead isn't enough - oh, now I'm "fear mongering"... and "we're supposed to be better then that". I've said it before, I'll say it again - Mr. Dickhead Zubaydah lost his "rights" when he wanted to kill more, and he beheaded Americans for the world to see. I'm supposed to cry about this guy getting waterboarded? Hell no.

 

Let me take a different tact.

 

What does waterboarding a handful of known leadership of terrorist networks do to our country?

 

What good does it do to release memos about "supposed" questionaire techniques?

 

What good does it do to go to foreign soil and say "I am Barack Hussein Obama and not Beorge W Bush"?

 

What does our country do if attacked again?

 

I'll start with these questions and try to be a good boy and debate the issues without Kaperbole ™.

 

1. What does waterboarding do? It helps set a precedent of what is acceptable to do. If we use what we would consider to be torture to our own soldiers on foreign prisoners, we have to be willing to accept it performed on our soldiers when captured in battle. When we view something of this nature as acceptable, we give cover to other states who torture equally or worse. As one of the leaders on this planet, we have an obligation to play better than the other, lesser players - because our behavior does help many other states stay in check. Not waterboarding KSM may not have an effect on Al-Qaeda, but it might on how the Chinese may treat us if we ever fight them, or on how another state might treat our soldiers when they get in harm's way.

 

2. What good does it do to release memos? Transparency is important for own peace of mind domestically. If all it does is confirm the suspicions of critics of our past actions, it takes steps to atone for the missteps that we have made and also to help lessen tensions - in a "turning over a new leaf" kind of sense.

 

3. What good does it do to differentiate administrations on foreign soil? A lot actually. Our path to combatting transglobal terrorism becomes easier when two things happen - some degree of goodwill is generated between other countries and us, and also when anger and hatred on the streets that foment terror is lessened. Hard to convert hearts and minds, when they are much more ambivalent on the US then they have been in recent years. It's not a total solution by any means towards ending terrorism as a serious threat, its an extremely complex situation that requires a number of avenues to fight it. What Obama has done in the last couple months abroad has the potential to be very good for the foreign relations of the US down the line, but only if its followed by the right steps afterwords. Will those happen? Frankly, nobody on this board knows for sure, but Obama seems to be heading in the direction of having a level headed foreign policy. Less anger tossed indiscriminately, more focus on the places that need it.

 

In the end, I think Obama is a bigger hawk than anyone here gives him credit for - and frankly, I'd be surprised if there aren't US soldiers doing major operations in Northwest Pakistan before the next Presidential election.

 

[kapkomet]

1. What does waterboarding do? It helps set a precedent of what is acceptable to do. If we use what we would consider to be torture to our own soldiers on foreign prisoners, we have to be willing to accept it performed on our soldiers when captured in battle. When we view something of this nature as acceptable, we give cover to other states who torture equally or worse. As one of the leaders on this planet, we have an obligation to play better than the other, lesser players - because our behavior does help many other states stay in check. Not waterboarding KSM may not have an effect on Al-Qaeda, but it might on how the Chinese may treat us if we ever fight them, or on how another state might treat our soldiers when they get in harm's way.

 

2. What good does it do to release memos? Transparency is important for own peace of mind domestically. If all it does is confirm the suspicions of critics of our past actions, it takes steps to atone for the missteps that we have made and also to help lessen tensions - in a "turning over a new leaf" kind of sense.

 

3. What good does it do to differentiate administrations on foreign soil? A lot actually. Our path to combatting transglobal terrorism becomes easier when two things happen - some degree of goodwill is generated between other countries and us, and also when anger and hatred on the streets that foment terror is lessened. Hard to convert hearts and minds, when they are much more ambivalent on the US then they have been in recent years. It's not a total solution by any means towards ending terrorism as a serious threat, its an extremely complex situation that requires a number of avenues to fight it. What Obama has done in the last couple months abroad has the potential to be very good for the foreign relations of the US down the line, but only if its followed by the right steps afterwords. Will those happen? Frankly, nobody on this board knows for sure, but Obama seems to be heading in the direction of having a level headed foreign policy. Less anger tossed indiscriminately, more focus on the places that need it.

 

In the end, I think Obama is a bigger hawk than anyone here gives him credit for - and frankly, I'd be surprised if there aren't US soldiers doing major operations in Northwest Pakistan before the next Presidential election.

 

Re point #1 - the problem is, sir, NO ONE in the world will play by the rules but us, so what's the point? Do you think Mr. Chicomm gives a s*** about an American and his "rights" if we ever got into a war with them? GMAFB. And the world is full of roses. I guess that's my point. None of our enemies play by the rules. I'm not for 285 times or whatever it was, if that's really true. But if there are lives to be saved, then you have to do some things that you don't want to do as a government. I have a feeling that some of this stuff was cherry-picked to make it look like something else. If you're going to cherry pick s*** to release, release it all.

 

Re point 2 and 3 - these people seize on this stuff as weakness, not strength. I'll get more into that later.

Edited April 20, 2009 by kapkomet

[BigSqwert]

Re point #1 - the problem is, sir, NO ONE in the world will play by the rules but us, so what's the point? Do you think Mr. Chicomm gives a s*** about an American and his "rights" if we ever got into a war with them? GMAFB. And the world is full of roses. I guess that's my point. None of our enemies play by the rules.

Why have any rules then?

 

Does your religion support the torture of other individuals?

Edited April 20, 2009 by BigSqwert

[lostfan]

Point #3 is valid. It's an "underlying condition" that contributes to terrorism, which is one of many things. It doesn't even have to necessarily be something we accept. (This is straight from the Bush Administration's National Strategy for Combating Terrorism from Feb. 2003 - my interpretation of it, but the basic definition is in there)

Edited April 20, 2009 by lostfan

[NorthSideSox72]

Re point #1 - the problem is, sir, NO ONE in the world will play by the rules but us, so what's the point? Do you think Mr. Chicomm gives a s*** about an American and his "rights" if we ever got into a war with them? GMAFB. And the world is full of roses. I guess that's my point. None of our enemies play by the rules. I'm not for 285 times or whatever it was, if that's really true. But if there are lives to be saved, then you have to do some things that you don't want to do as a government. I have a feeling that some of this stuff was cherry-picked to make it look like something else. If you're going to cherry pick s*** to release, release it all.

 

Re point 2 and 3 - these people seize on this stuff as weakness, not strength. I'll get more into that later.

The fact that others won't follow those rules makes it all the more important that we do, IMO.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Re point #1 - the problem is, sir, NO ONE in the world will play by the rules but us, so what's the point? Do you think Mr. Chicomm gives a s*** about an American and his "rights" if we ever got into a war with them? GMAFB. And the world is full of roses. I guess that's my point. None of our enemies play by the rules. I'm not for 285 times or whatever it was, if that's really true. But if there are lives to be saved, then you have to do some things that you don't want to do as a government. I have a feeling that some of this stuff was cherry-picked to make it look like something else. If you're going to cherry pick s*** to release, release it all.

 

Re point 2 and 3 - these people seize on this stuff as weakness, not strength. I'll get more into that later.

 

Re point #1: When you are the big dog, you have to set an example. If you play rough the smaller dogs play rougher to get your attention.

 

Re point 2 and 3 - the stuff we are doing is as much for our more squeamish allies to get back on our side than it is for the people we are fighting against. Every action has a reaction and consequences. The message might be directed at Head of State X, but it might really be meant to be heard by States L,M and N and the people of Y and Z.

 

We need to find a balance between being too soft and too hard. I think a part of what you're seeing is the pendulum swinging back to something more reasonable than what we've seen. Given that we've had a rather extremist policy in the last six years (and the truth is, if our policy was matched by a country we aren't friendly with, it would indeed be considered extreme,) its not surprising that seeing a more rational face in politics seems a bit shocking.

[Balta1701]

Different subject.

 

The battle in NY appears over before it's even begun.

By a 53-39 percent margin, voters support the Senate passing a bill to legalize same sex marriages that would virtually ensure its becoming law. Democrats, independent and young voters, and women strongly support Senate passage. Republicans strongly oppose passage, with men, older voters, African Americans, and Protestants also opposed. Support is strongest in New York City. Every region of the state supports passage.

 

“By a fairly significant margin, voters would like to see New York join with Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, and other states in allowing same sex couples to marry here,” Greenberg said. “For women and young voters it‟s a resounding „yes.‟ Men and older voters are more closely divided and more likely to say „no.‟ ”

[BigSqwert]

LINK

 

KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED/CIA TORTURE HANDBOOK

 

By Elvis Dingeldein, as leaked by The Agency of the Centralized Intelligences™.

 

Tie Subject securely to an inclined bench and elevate Subject’s feet.

 

Place cloth over the forehead and eyes.

 

Apply water to the cloth in a controlled manner.

 

Lower cloth until it covers both the nose and mouth.

 

Once the cloth is saturated with water, air flow will be restricted for 20 to 40 seconds.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

 

Repeat.

[kapkomet]

Re point #1: When you are the big dog, you have to set an example. If you play rough the smaller dogs play rougher to get your attention.

 

Re point 2 and 3 - the stuff we are doing is as much for our more squeamish allies to get back on our side than it is for the people we are fighting against. Every action has a reaction and consequences. The message might be directed at Head of State X, but it might really be meant to be heard by States L,M and N and the people of Y and Z.

 

We need to find a balance between being too soft and too hard. I think a part of what you're seeing is the pendulum swinging back to something more reasonable than what we've seen. Given that we've had a rather extremist policy in the last six years (and the truth is, if our policy was matched by a country we aren't friendly with, it would indeed be considered extreme,) its not surprising that seeing a more rational face in politics seems a bit shocking.

I guess my main point here is, you do this stuff behind closed doors. The quotes I see and hear, he is seriously "apologizing" for everything we do, and that's not right.

 

[Balta1701]

Obama shakes hands with President of Mexico Felipe Calderon's dog, appears to bow to him.

 

 

The level of embarrassment to this country by this man's actions here are unspeakable.

[kapkomet]

Obama shakes hands with President of Mexico Felipe Calderon's dog, appears to bow to him.

 

 

The level of embarrassment to this country by this man's actions here are unspeakable.

I know, it's supposed to be funny, but on the serious side, you know damn well that this is not anywhere comparable, even for a joke.

 

[Balta1701]

I know, it's supposed to be funny, but on the serious side, you know damn well that this is not anywhere comparable, even for a joke.

The President himself has joined in with the scorn of this silly idea.

Bill Plante. No? Bill is not here? That's shocking. (Laughter.) Dan from CNN.

 

Q During the campaign you were criticized by some within your own party for perhaps not being able to be tough on foreign policy matters. Now you've had this friendly interaction with Mr. Chavez. Are you concerned at all about how this might be perceived back in the U.S. as perhaps being soft? Already one senator is calling this friendly interaction irresponsible. And as a quick follow-up, if I may, when you got the book from Mr. Chavez, what did you really think? (Laughter.)

 

THE PRESIDENT: I think it was a nice gesture to give me a book; I'm a reader. And you're right, we had this debate throughout the campaign, and the whole notion was, is that somehow if we showed courtesy or opened up dialogue with governments that had previously been hostile to us, that that somehow would be a sign of weakness. The American people didn't buy it. And there's a good reason the American people didn't buy it -- because it doesn't make sense.

 

You take a country like Venezuela -- I have great differences with Hugo Chavez on matters of economic policy and matters of foreign policy. His rhetoric directed at the United States has been inflammatory. There have been instances in which we've seen Venezuela interfere with some of the -- some of the countries that surround Venezuela in ways that I think are a source of concern.

 

On the other hand, Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States'. They own Citgo. It's unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. I don't think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.

[BearSox]

Re point #1 - the problem is, sir, NO ONE in the world will play by the rules but us, so what's the point? Do you think Mr. Chicomm gives a s*** about an American and his "rights" if we ever got into a war with them? GMAFB. And the world is full of roses. I guess that's my point. None of our enemies play by the rules. I'm not for 285 times or whatever it was, if that's really true. But if there are lives to be saved, then you have to do some things that you don't want to do as a government. I have a feeling that some of this stuff was cherry-picked to make it look like something else. If you're going to cherry pick s*** to release, release it all.

 

Re point 2 and 3 - these people seize on this stuff as weakness, not strength. I'll get more into that later.

Kap, would you want these innocent freedom fighters who were standing up against evil America to be treated poorly? Of course not! They should all be given nice hardy meals 3 times a day, nice cozy beds, basically anything they want! And if evil America ever needs to get info from them, they should just ask politely. Cause you know what, they might be chopping off heads of every American they capture, but they are just overreating after years of oppression by the American Government. We need to be better than them. Oh, and we need to give them civilian trials, because they deserve to be American Citizens!

[lostfan]

Kap, would you want these innocent freedom fighters who were standing up against evil America to be treated poorly? Of course not! They should all be given nice hardy meals 3 times a day, nice cozy beds, basically anything they want! And if evil America ever needs to get info from them, they should just ask politely. Cause you know what, they might be chopping off heads of every American they capture, but they are just overreating after years of oppression by the American Government. We need to be better than them. Oh, and we need to give them civilian trials, because they deserve to be American Citizens!

Geez, it's bad enough when it's just Kap doing it, but please try to keep these kinds of over-the-top posts out of the wrong threads.

[BearSox]

Geez, it's bad enough when it's just Kap doing it, but please try to keep these kinds of over-the-top posts out of the wrong threads.

Sorry sire.

[lostfan]

lol, did you just say "sire"

[BearSox]

lol, did you just say "sire"

Yes I did. I don't want you torturing me... lol.

Edited April 21, 2009 by BearSox

[lostfan]

Yes I did. I don't want you torturing me... lol.

lol, nah the closest I ever came to torturing a guy (not really torture, it's permitted) was when he started getting smart w/me so I made him stand in a squatting position for a few mins while I rephrased my question. I actually wanted to slap him but I couldn't.

[BearSox]

lol, nah the closest I ever came to torturing a guy (not really torture, it's permitted) was when he started getting smart w/me so I made him stand in a squatting position for a few mins while I rephrased my question. I actually wanted to slap him but I couldn't.

I had a religion teacher who thought he was all badass (he was a some-what old guy who said he knew all these moves, like he could rip your heart of your chest, kill you by barely touching you, and crap like that. He also claimed he knew how to throw a chie ball, oh and that he was trained for several year in martial arts and s*** like that. Plus he tries to act all mysterious and never reveal much about his past) and said if he wanted to, he could make me give up a secret of national importance. Of course I denied that he could make me talk. However, some of his torture ideas were a bit creepy that he would have actually thought of them. His favorite was to stuff a hose in someone's mouth, and pin shut your nose and, well, your man hose. I must say, that is just plain wrong.

[NorthSideSox72]

I had a religion teacher who thought he was all badass (he was a some-what old guy who said he knew all these moves, like he could rip your heart of your chest, kill you by barely touching you, and crap like that. He also claimed he knew how to throw a chie ball, oh and that he was trained for several year in martial arts and s*** like that. Plus he tries to act all mysterious and never reveal much about his past) and said if he wanted to, he could make me give up a secret of national importance. Of course I denied that he could make me talk. However, some of his torture ideas were a bit creepy that he would have actually thought of them. His favorite was to stuff a hose in someone's mouth, and pin shut your nose and, well, your man hose. I must say, that is just plain wrong.

um... wow. what religion was this?

 

[BigSqwert]

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
We Don't Torture
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

 

 

[longshot7]

Funny - reading a lot of the above made me wonder....isn't this the Democrat thread?