kumquatq3

twas the chimps

Hippie

So the "High Iq society" is the best one online I take it?

You said "In fact, we have proof that the Bush administration condoned torture as a matter of policy.....Or perhaps you've not heard of the torture memos of 2002?" I simplely showed that what you said IS factly incorrect. Those memos essentially asnwered a question of "what is (illegal) and what isn't (legal) considered torture". You said they condoned torture when that clearly isn't the case. Do I consider the documents horrible? Yes. Are they direct evidence for your claim? No. The documents only told the administration what is and what isn't legal. Understand? Thats why they had a Federal Appelete judge look at them, to make sure their legally correct. You mean the CIA. There is little evidence that the Pentagon knowingly condoned these methods outlined in the memo. As for my personal opnion, I'm with John McCain. But thats not why I posted. I posted because your claims, while they could be true, were supported by false evidence. And that doesn't help my/our view point. I think there is more than enough real facts to prove my points on this issue. 1. Nope, not unless it is "SEVERE". Thats the big grey area McCains bill is supposed to clear up. 2. Me and Bush do not share any moral opinion on the matter. We possibly might share an opinion on what the LAW says on the issue. To my knowledge, that is exactly what I'm claiming. That have been pretty clear about the terrorists NOT having POW status. The Iraq Army regulars is another story. You have not. Name calling won't hide your lack of evidence. In fact, You have not. Or you have failed to understand it. Swarmed? Crushed? You have provided one link that disproves your comments. You said the congress saw "THOUSANDS" of photos and are surpressing them While, if you search the article (I encourage EVERYONE to search it to verify what I'm saying), only meantions "THousands" in reference to the pictures once, which is: "Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control." "Outside of 'their' control" and "may exist" doesn't match your claim of: "For that matter, there are THOUSANDS of photos that our government has, and that our Senators have seen and confirme" You seem well educated and resourceful enough, why you have to make up claims is beyond me. Trust me, there is no need. While there is no smoking gun, plenty of evidence is already there.

EXACTLY what I was thinking

You misunderstand " In this case, the memorandum was signed by Jay S. Bybee, the head of the office at the time. Bybee's signature gives the document additional authority, making it akin to a binding legal opinion on government policy on interrogations." That does NOT make US policy. It does confirm the legal issues the document address are, in fact, correct. The Post twisted the wording a bit to make their case. By have the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge sign off on the document it basically mean it has been reviewed and upheld the legality of the document. Making it, essentially, precedent. Which is influencial, but without it coming from a higher court, isn't exactly binding. I had it on my computer quite awhile ago and have read it. Is it ugly? Yes. Does it legally condone torture? Nope. The Whitehouse ruled??? I assure you thats not the case Try again I meant, Link Please Or maybe someone should use sources to back up his arguement but your link DOES NOT support your arguement. You again twisted it. It says: "Pentagon officials also have told lawmakers that thousands of other damning photos, not yet publicized, may exist outside the Defense Department's control. Individual soldiers who took the photos... " You said: So Senators saw photos that the pentagon doesn't even know really exists???? I'd appreciate if you don't make up info, hence why I have to ask for links What really is the case is this: Those "thousands" are multiply copies of a few pictures, that may or may not exist in the first place. Which is unlikely, as some of them would have been leaked by now. The Congress saw only few unreleased photos that were purposely surpressed. That much is true.

:Devils advocate: That would be the Justice deptartment telling Bush what interrigation acts are legal. Not Bush condoning anything. To quote the Washington Post (not exactly Bushs best freind): the 2002 and 2003 memos reflect the Bush administration's desire to explore the limits on how far it could legally go in aggressively interrogating foreigners suspected of terrorism or of having information that could thwart future attacks. So, a letter asking essentially what is and what isn't legal isn't exactly a smoking gun, no matter how coldly and bluntly it was worded Because of lots of reason: 1. Because of the legal grey area of: What is "severe". That word is used alot, but not defined. 2.The "terrorists" are not civilians, but not POWs by any Geneva definition and all sorts of various loopholes in the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Basically, if brought to trial under US law, the charge wouldn't stick. Not saying your wrong, but curious: 1. Whose words are they? 2. I know there was unreleased photos, but it was my understanding it was more soldier taken shots. Hence, not THOUSANDS. Link please? :End devils advocate: that was fun

yea, but are any of these "legit" I mean, are any of these recognized by....some body that views them as "correct"

I heard Letterman joke that his IQ was 80, and ever since then find out my IQ has been stuck in my head like a bad song. I'm happy to get "not free" or "not online" ones as well

How sexist. Good story and great quests is what make a game. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, they make a game but his point was that Big breated women make an excellent game "

I think your talking with a forked tongue

What? Cat got your tongue?

Nope, just tongue tied

Your jokes offend my refined Taste, Bud

NO! and don't pretend they are I'm going to go brush my teeth for an hour now

"Big" and cudly

NP As far as thanking, I didn't mean it literally, as we're not doing it on purpose. I promise. It's just capitalism and pharmaceutical lobbyists in action

Uh you lost me. If you have universal health care, you don't pay for yourself. Not market price of what it costs. If you don't, then I wasn't talking about you Just thank your lucky stars your not in Iraq.

One pic per celeb! The magic of airbrushing She has had nudes scenes, not fake

While that doesn't really answer anything, taks is 100% correct. In terms of quality of individual care, you can't compare privatized and universal health care. and you should all thank your lucky stars America doesn't have things like universal coverage or price caps on drugs. If we did the entire pharmaceutical industry would crumble (especially R&D). We basically help pay for your caps and universal coverage.

"Big" and cudly

So your messiah is an ADHD-addled technophobe who also apparently lacks the ability to keep an internal monologue internal. And you wonder why I'll never see this Firefly trash. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thats why? I just figured it was due to a complete lack of taste

That is your Mona Lisa

Actually, the word "organization" is more frequently used than "franchise". I guess "club" isn't used because, um, I don't know why. You hear baseball teams being called clubs, but not any other American sport I can think of. You generally break out the word "franchises" when talking about making a new team or what not. "Franchise" is generally more geared to "everything" about the team, while "organization" is generally used to talk about the owners and managers. But it's a VERY fine line, if it even exists. They overlap quite a bit in terms of actaul usage. What I'm trying to say is, your question makes an incorrect assumption, but I was still trying to show why/how the word is used when it is used. off to poker night

Only because of the coming of The Revolution