technopeasant

If they come after Sarah, they will die in bunches.

BTW, I always thought the Geneva Convention treaty existed just to restrain us. It certainly doesn’t seem to restrain anybody else.

The gop, hateful,spiteful,old,male,old Confederacy regionally based bigots. Please don’t change your M.O., its working so well for you.

athensboy on May 22, 2009 at 7:21 AM

Gee, that sounded hateful, spiteful, tired and redundant. But that’s what trolls do.

The gop, hateful,spiteful,old,male,old Confederacy regionally based bigots. Please don’t change your M.O., its working so well for you.

athensboy on May 22, 2009 at 7:21 AM

I’m sure the conservatives in Alaska, Arizona and Montana are looking forward to putting up their Civil War monuments any day now.

You know what, never mind. You’re absolutely right, and you’ve convinced every one of us that your party is absolutely correct on every issue, now and forevermore. Your work here is done.

I didn’t know they had plastic wrap during the Spanish Inquisition.

Splunge on May 21, 2009 at 10:44 PM

Shhh- nobody’s supposed to know that we don’t actually cause terrorists to ingest water during waterboarding.

Obama’s own reputation

The goal.

athensboy on May 22, 2009 at 7:21 AM

Dear Demon. None of that. You are a waste of space.

No offense.

Just sayin’.

If water boarding is so ineffective and we learned zero, zip, nada from it, why did we do it over a period of 8 years?

We didn’t do it over 8 years, The better question is: if waterboarding was ineffective why has Obama refused to release the memos detailing the results of these interrogations?

The answer is so obvious the in-the-tank MSM won’t even ask.

Kinda funny.

Jim Treacher

(::sigh:: No, it’s not. The pissy poser’s actually president now. And in all of four months’ time, humor has left the building. Irony’s still hanging around for scraps, but humor took a powder.)

I am thinking for running for the Senate of the United States of America, for the State of California.

Seven Percent Solution on May 22, 2009 at 2:21 AM

Dont be a wussy, quite thinking about it and do it… And thats one Californian speaking to another…

I am thinking for running for the Senate of the United States of America, for the State of California.

Seven Percent Solution on May 22, 2009 at 2:21 AM

Dont be a pussy, quite thinking about it and do it… And thats one Californian speaking to another…

athensboy on May 22,2009 at 7:21AM.

athensboy:

Goodmorning LibTard,you need to activate the re-set button,
your stuck on Bush!!

And remember,its was the Republican Party who fought to
free the slaves,back when,now what side of that issue
where you on!!!

Obama needs to be criticized,because if anything,thats what
upsets,Hopey/Changey!!!

With treaties that have enforcement mechanisms

Er .. should be:

that have NO enforcement mechanisms

and refuse to acknowledge that we still live with the exact same threats, to this day

progressoverpeace on May 22, 2009 at 3:56 AM

By that I mean, if I were a jihadi with a sizeable ability, I would look more to trying to cause a Russian nuke launch (either an active launch or causing the Russians to think they were about to come under attack) than directly hit the US. This is not nearly as difficult as many would think. The Russians had a couple of close calls on mistaken warnings even since 2000, and our close calls in the 70’s and 80’s are known.

This is clearly the most extreme case, but it is not at all unreasonable. We know that Russian nuclear safeguards (for warning and launch) are pretty awful and the news of computer viruses invading some of our own sensitive systems is a bit unsettling.

The purpose of our nuclear arsenal is to first to provide a credible threat. And second to obliterate the ability of a hostile nation to continue to fight a war that they started.

darktood on May 22, 2009 at 3:35 AM

I understand exactly what our arsenal is for, which is why I said that it violates the 4th Geneva Convention. This goes to the whole idiocy of not being allowed to threaten, or even humiliate, prisoners and civilians. My point is that the Geneva Conventions are totally unrealistic and no one has ever followed them. No one even took them seriously until after the fall of the USSR in 1991 and people started creating this illusory world in which all wars take place within some well-defined, international legal framework and with the same sorts of moral calculations as one makes in peace time. (I would note that the UN was also never considered anything but a joke, that no one took seriously, until after the USSR fell and Bush Sr. empowered that peerless, competitionless institution in one of the dumbest moves in all of human history. These were not coincidences.)

All I want to hear someone ask one of these Geneva Convention whores is why we have the nuclear football and how it complies with the Geneva Conventions that they would love to use to neuter our ability to defend ourselves based on a fantasy world that has never existed. Many people today don’t even know what the Cold War was about, what the threats were (total annihilation) and refuse to acknowledge that we still live with the exact same threats, to this day – in conflict with their naive, fantasy world.

…….. I am thinking for running for the Senate of the United States of America, for the State of California.

Seven Percent Solution on May 22, 2009 at 2:21 AM

.
If you are in Pelosi’s district, remember to campaign in drag, and/or fetish gear.
.
.

And, if I hear one more idiot refer to the Geneva Conventions, I think I’ll retch. Every time some moron brings that treaty up, let him answer how our strategic nuclear arsenal is allowed under the Geneva Conventions, since its only purpose is to incinerate tens of millions of civilians
.
progressoverpeace on May 22, 2009 at 2:29 AM

.
The purpose of our nuclear arsenal is to first to provide a credible threat. And second to obliterate the ability of a hostile nation to continue to fight a war that they started.

John McCain
Colin Powell
John Huntsmann

It’s not at all clear from anything they’ve said. In fact, it seems far too likely that we’d be on opposite sides of this, the single primally important issue.

notropis on May 22, 2009 at 2:24 AM

You are exactly right about this.
I would also add Lindsey Graham to this list.

As much as I respect McCain for his Military service I get sick and tired of the sucker punches he throws at the Republican party all the time.
Just when you start to feel good about him,you get up in the morning and go “He said What!!!?”.
This combined with him not sticking up for Palin (Who provided him his only chance of winning in 08 before the Sept. crash) when his campaign people tried to lay the loss on her
sealed my deal with him.
Cheney goes out and puts Obama and his liberal sheep on the defensive and McCain gets on Greta to distort the message and give the democrats MSM help once again.

By the time 2010/2012 rolls around,this country is going to need strong,decisive leadership not based on polls or ideological pursuit,but what is best for the country.

Republicans are going to have to offer this backed up with
coherent and practical solutions are they will remain in the minority.

We can offer a large tent of ideas and policies without settling for weak and indecisive leadership.

And then [McCain] got acerbic: Cheney, he says, “believes that waterboarding doesn’t fall under the Geneva Conventions and that it’s not a form of torture. But you know, it goes back to the Spanish Inquisition.”

This is just pure idiocy. I understand that McCain withstood true torture, but that doesn’t give him free license to make up anything he wants about torture. But, McCain has always taken free license to make up all sorts of stuff.

If all they did during the Spanish Inquisition was waterboarding of the type done at GITMO, then there wouldn’t even be a name for that period. Maybe these geniuses should think about that before they start with their incoherent babbling about the illusory world they have created. It is sheer insanity.

And, if I hear one more idiot refer to the Geneva Conventions, I think I’ll retch. Every time some moron brings that treaty up, let him answer how our strategic nuclear arsenal is allowed under the Geneva Conventions, since its only purpose is to incinerate tens of millions of civilians – just the threat of which is specifically prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. Let these morons show how they would totally strip us of our security in pursuit of their windmills of idiocy.

I have never seen such insanity like that exhibited by these fools in their attempts to paint waterboarding as torture and their asinine references to a treaty that has never been kept by anyone, save a few pieces here and there, when convenient. This world cannot continue much longer with such a drastic detachment from reality existing in the minds of our politicians and government officials.

This is how my world has been defined for over seven years, so I’m real patient with people like:

David Brooks
David Frum
Christopher Hitchens
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Michael Steele
Sarah Palin

I know for a fact on which side of the divide each of the above stands, and it’s the same as me.

On the other hand:

John McCain
Colin Powell
John Huntsmann

It’s not at all clear from anything they’ve said. In fact, it seems far too likely that we’d be on opposite sides of this, the single primally important issue.

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

Maybe Obama was talking in Argentinean again and “less safe” translates to “safer” in English?