johnnyrodgers20

Ideally, in a well oiled Democracy, the people should be able to recall an elected official at any time for his behavior, criminal or not. Recalls, along with direct election of Senators and ballot initiatives, were part of the democratic reforms of the late 1800s pushed by Progressives (before that term came to mean Liberal) that vastly improved our system.

 

These events refine our Democracy. Succeed or fail, they're important in that they allow people a voice and enforce an extra degree of accountability. It was a good thing.

 

Anyhow, this is no great harbinger of things to come, at least not for the state. Walker will loose reelection in '14. He won this one because he had boat loads of outside cash and he was the defining issue of the election. An off year election with little outside funding and he'll lose. That's not a statement about what I think about Walker politically, that's a statement about this kind of election in general.

 

Personally, I don't care for the guy. He's an outsider who clearly has painfully little knowledge of the rich and complicated history of the State. His handling of the collective bargaining ordeal proved that.

 

He was elected as part of the fiscally conservative tea party backlash we saw against the President in 2010. In Wisconsin that movement is very much a fad, foreign even to the State's conservatives who've always been more based on social issues. He won't last.

I think recalls should be restricted to non-policy reasons. He was just elected and did what he promised to do during the campaign. Illegal and immoral (slippery slope there, but more like the SC gov and the South American hottie). If you disagree with the policies there is a remedy. It's called the next election. Otherwise you could throw one recall after another until the guy gets out of office.

Exactly, the Pubs could go around the nation and get recalls from very close races and we would never have any peace. Just constant turnover because we don't like their policies, that would be sheer madness.

Now picture this kind of deranged person with unchecked power to rule over the lives of parishioners and members of state. That should give you a glimpse into life under theocracy.

 

As Hitch was so fond of saying, "Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall."

People always worry about a theocracy and places like Iran are good examples of that but what a bout the atheists in total power? The biggest mass murders of all have been Communist leaders like Hitler, Stalin and pol pot .

I believe that abortions should be legal in all cases. Period. But if you are going to pretend that "conservative right wing nutjobs" are waging a war against women (as the Democrats claim), you'd better make sure your record is clean. In this video, a person working at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin makes it clear that an abortion based solely on the sex of the fetus is perfectly acceptable. As I stated above, I believe that a woman has a right to abort for whatever reason - just admit that your war on women begins a few years before they are use the pill.

 

That is just crazy, ridiculous!! A partial birth abortion is just plain murder. And babies have lived outside the womb at 27 weeks. If you want to debate when abortion should be legal that's fine but at any time is just insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i just finished an enviornmental history class, we have the technology to make cars average around 80-90 mpg but we dont because of planned obsolscence. why would we do that when we could triple our money by having cars average 30? f#*k this country

I understand your first part of your post. WOW!!! to the bolded part.

Just keep the economy weak and the oil will naturally come down.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57427806/oil-prices-drop-as-traders-eye-u.s-jobs-data/

Newsbusters. Haha.

 

Condescending? Whatever could you mean? Johnny, I simply cannot fathom what you're talking about.

Nice retort where is the story wrong?

Newsbusters. Haha.

 

Condescending? Whatever could you mean? Johnny, I simply cannot fathom what you're talking about.

My bad, I thought you were smarter than that. You made your point you have a hard time fathoming things I see that from this thread. Must be nice to have a mod to back you up also.

We did uphold our morals, you just perceive it to be torture, your right to do so. We, on the other hand, viewed it as enhanced interrogation, that is much different than torture. And our right to do so, and we have the POTUS on our hands. BO wouldn't harbor a war criminal that would make him an accessory after the fact, a crime in and of itself!!

Apparently you don't know that we (the US) executed Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American POWs. We regarded it as a war crime. Those pesky facts. Always getting in the way of Johnnny's beliefs.

 

How is Obama an accessory after the fact? You keep saying that but you can't explain why.

Alittle distortion of what really happened,

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/04/24/did-cnns-paul-begala-mangle-facts-waterboarding-history

The name is johnnyrodgers20 or JR20. I find your tone very condescending and below you. I just said he is harboring Cheney, if Cheney is a war criminal then he is protecting him from the international community, isn't that an accessory after the fact?. Did you not read the quote you posted of mine?

We did uphold our morals, you just perceive it to be torture, your right to do so. We, on the other hand, viewed it as enhanced interrogation, that is much different than torture. And our right to do so, and we have the POTUS on our hands. BO wouldn't harbor a war criminal that would make him an accessory after the fact, a crime in and of itself!!

I also find it enlightening how some react so mildly to "war crimes" of others i.e. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Queda, etc. but become indignant when someone like Cheney suggests we perform enhanced interrogations on enemy combatants and prisoners of war. I guess some view it as worse when the goal is to stop terrorists from killing US citizens and soldiers rather than when dictators, terrorists, and thugs actually kill us. IMO, "war crime" is pretty much an oxymoron anyway. When your enemy doesn't operate within any rules or moral code of behavior, I don't see how you can be expected to not push the limits in the interest of self preservation. Cheney, a war criminal? Technically? Slightly, maybe. Reasonably? No way. I would've hoped that we learned a few things from events like Vietnam but it is obvious some still like to see us engaged in battle with our hands tied.

Please find one post from me defending the war crimes of Hussein, Bin Laden, or Al Queda. One post.

 

The day we sacrifice our morals just because our enemies have done so is the day that America loses any possible claim at exceptionalism. Whether you realize it or not you've just made a wonderful argument for us being no better than our enemies.

 

I, on the other hand, expect MY country to abide by a higher moral standard than Hussein, Bin Laden, or Al Queda. Your words indicate that you do not share those expectations.

 

 

I think we are better than them there idea of interrogation is a beheading, that is torture. We did not committ torture and still have the high morals you speak of. if you believed we tortured I am sure there is nothing we cna say to change your mind the only thing we can say no is you are wrong.

You're wrong. We did torture. We have now stopped.

 

I do look forward to your voluntary waterboarding. It'll just be unpleasant . . . not torture. Just unpleasant. Should be an enlightening experience for everyone.

You are wonrg we did not torture and so there is no way we coul dhave stopped torturing, thankyou. And it will be delightful to see you next to a drone dropped on a terrorist. You will be an innocent casualty, you can have solace in that.

Numerous sources have reported that key intelligence about the courier who had links to OBL was garnered from Khalid Sheik Muhammad at Gitmo. It is widely accepted fact that KSM was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.

 

"these" people are those such as Carl who spend much more time and effort commenting on how Cheney is a war criminal and comparatively little time decrying the atrocities of Al Queda and others. I am making some inferrences in both cases. I'm sure none of the culprits would come out and say as much but the positions they take and support cause me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure nobody knowingly wants us to fight with our hands tied but, there are consequences to their proposals. You can call it a straw man but I view more as the unavoidable consequence of certain positions.

 

Please cite one source with accurate information that can support the allegation that the information which led directly to the raid on bin Laden's compound was acquired under torture.

 

I'm certain if you asked carlfense about al Qaeda and their actions, he would decry them. But that's not the subject of this thread, is it? That's like being upset we're not decrying the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition in all the myriad religious threads we have. If we had a thread about the Inquisition, I'm certain it would be roundly criticized. Surely you're not implying that lack of denunciation of the Inquisition by our Christian friends in every thread is tacit approval of the Inquisition, are you?

You won't find that because we didn't torture anyone it was enhanced interrogations.

I also find it enlightening how some react so mildly to "war crimes" of others i.e. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Queda, etc. but become indignant when someone like Cheney suggests we perform enhanced interrogations on enemy combatants and prisoners of war. I guess some view it as worse when the goal is to stop terrorists from killing US citizens and soldiers rather than when dictators, terrorists, and thugs actually kill us. IMO, "war crime" is pretty much an oxymoron anyway. When your enemy doesn't operate within any rules or moral code of behavior, I don't see how you can be expected to not push the limits in the interest of self preservation. Cheney, a war criminal? Technically? Slightly, maybe. Reasonably? No way. I would've hoped that we learned a few things from events like Vietnam but it is obvious some still like to see us engaged in battle with our hands tied.

Please find one post from me defending the war crimes of Hussein, Bin Laden, or Al Queda. One post.

 

The day we sacrifice our morals just because our enemies have done so is the day that America loses any possible claim at exceptionalism. Whether you realize it or not you've just made a wonderful argument for us being no better than our enemies.

 

I, on the other hand, expect MY country to abide by a higher moral standard than Hussein, Bin Laden, or Al Queda. Your words indicate that you do not share those expectations.

I think we are better than them their idea of interrogation is a beheading, that is torture. We did not committ torture and still have the high morals you speak of. if you believed we tortured I am sure there is nothing we cna say to change your mind the only thing we can say no is you are wrong.

On a related note to Carl's and Johnny's bickering, doesn't anyone find it somewhat amusing that the information that led to the Bin Laden kill operation was made possible through enhanced interrogations (some call it torture) at Gitmo? So, the big military, feather in the hat, victory of Obama would not have been possible if Obama and liberal dems had got their way with the Gitmo/Enhanced interrogation (torture) issues. Thanks for helping us get the info Dick but now we consider you a war criminal. Don't let the door hit ya in the arse. With friends/countrymen like that, who needs enemies? I also find it enlightening how some react so mildly to "war crimes" of others i.e. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Queda, etc. but become indignant when someone like Cheney suggests we perform enhanced interrogations on enemy combatants and prisoners of war. I guess some view it as worse when the goal is to stop terrorists from killing US citizens and soldiers rather than when dictators, terrorists, and thugs actually kill us. IMO, "war crime" is pretty much an oxymoron anyway. When your enemy doesn't operate within any rules or moral code of behavior, I don't see how you can be expected to not push the limits in the interest of self preservation. Cheney, a war criminal? Technically? Slightly, maybe. Reasonably? No way. I would've hoped that we learned a few things from events like Vietnam but it is obvious some still like to see us engaged in battle with our hands tied.

 

A few things:

 

Who said we got the info from Guantanamo detainees via torture?

Who are the people reacting "so mildly" to the war crimes of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, who are also "indignant" about Dick Cheney? This seems very much like a straw man.

Who are the people who want us to fight wars with our hands tied? This also seems like a straw man.

Numerous sources have reported that key intelligence about the courier who had links to OBL was garnered from Khalid Sheik Muhammad at Gitmo. It is widely accepted fact that KSM was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.

 

"these" people are those such as Carl who spend much more time and effort commenting on how Cheney is a war criminal and comparatively little time decrying the atrocities of Al Queda and others. I am making some inferrences in both cases. I'm sure none of the culprits would come out and say as much but the positions they take and support cause me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure nobody knowingly wants us to fight with our hands tied but, there are consequences to their proposals. You can call it a straw man but I view more as the unavoidable consequence of certain positions.

+1

Not you, johnny. Fox News.

I looked at most of the articles cited and I didn't see any fox news in that article. So it was not fox news with the information, I did see some NYT, CNN, ABC News and Forbes.

Yes, I've heard all that derp from Fox before. The Fox Plan:

 

1) Minimize the importance of the death of Osama bin Laden as it pertains to Barack Obama making the call to take him down. It wasn't strategically important, he was no longer the head of al Qaeda, etc.

2) Maximize the importance of the role the Bush Administration played in finding Osama bin Laden. It couldn't have been done without Bush's efforts, more credit should go to Bush, etc.

 

It's quite comical, actually.

Wow, where did you get that from? ONe, who is minimizing UBL's death? Two, Who is maximizing the role bush played? and three, just for the record where is the information wrong? You just smooth everything over with derp, pretty easy.

One, if you even look through this thread I have said it is a feather in BO's cap. it was a very good,probably his only good deed in his adm.

Two, I am not maximizing anyhting for Bush but showing that his adm. interrogated enemy combatants and got valuable information BO used to decide to go after UBL.

Now where did I go wrong, if it is comical explain please?

"Information was collected from Guantánamo Bay detainees" does not state that the method used was torture. I'm willing to believe it may have been - but we do not know. Quoting Wikipedia doesn't tell us anything.

It does tell us that it could have been used and that the information was from the Bush Adm. And it won't tell us that if they used enhanced interrogation, other people used that term not the Bush adm. So few are willing to give Bush any credit for UBL's death. His adm. and what they did at Guantanamo bay was critical for BO to know where UBL was. BO couldn't have ordered the hit if not for the info from the Bush Adm.

On a related note to Carl's and Johnny's bickering, doesn't anyone find it somewhat amusing that the information that led to the Bin Laden kill operation was made possible through enhanced interrogations (some call it torture) at Gitmo? So, the big military, feather in the hat, victory of Obama would not have been possible if Obama and liberal dems had got their way with the Gitmo/Enhanced interrogation (torture) issues. Thanks for helping us get the info Dick but now we consider you a war criminal. Don't let the door hit ya in the arse. With friends/countrymen like that, who needs enemies? I also find it enlightening how some react so mildly to "war crimes" of others i.e. Hussein, Bin Laden, Al Queda, etc. but become indignant when someone like Cheney suggests we perform enhanced interrogations on enemy combatants and prisoners of war. I guess some view it as worse when the goal is to stop terrorists from killing US citizens and soldiers rather than when dictators, terrorists, and thugs actually kill us. IMO, "war crime" is pretty much an oxymoron anyway. When your enemy doesn't operate within any rules or moral code of behavior, I don't see how you can be expected to not push the limits in the interest of self preservation. Cheney, a war criminal? Technically? Slightly, maybe. Reasonably? No way. I would've hoped that we learned a few things from events like Vietnam but it is obvious some still like to see us engaged in battle with our hands tied.

 

A few things:

 

Who said we got the info from Guantanamo detainees via torture?

Who are the people reacting "so mildly" to the war crimes of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, who are also "indignant" about Dick Cheney? This seems very much like a straw man.

Who are the people who want us to fight wars with our hands tied? This also seems like a straw man.

Main articles: Death of Osama bin Laden and Osama bin Laden's hideout compound

American intelligence officials discovered the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden by tracking one of his couriers. Information was collected from Guantánamo Bay detainees, who gave intelligence officers the courier's pseudonym and said that he was a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.^[32]In 2007, U.S. officials discovered the courier's real name and, in 2009, that he lived in Abbottābad, Pakistan.^[33] Using satellite photos and intelligence reports, the CIA surmised the inhabitants of the mansion. In September, the CIA concluded that the compound was "custom built to hide someone of significance" and that bin Laden's residence there was very likely.^[34][35] Officials surmised that he was living there with his youngest wife.

It must have been enhanced interogation as this is from 2007 when Bush was in office.

No persons who called Dick Cheney a war criminal have come out and outlined all the war crimes against Hussein, UBL or al Qaeda.

I belive he is referring to those who are outspoken against enhanced interogation and do not want to interogate enemy combatants.

Cheney is not and you are delusional if you think he is a war criminal.

I just showed you how and why.

 

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

I agree, what did you name your seeing eye dog????

</body>

And, again, if Cheney is (which he isn't) a war criminal then Bo may not be A&A but he is an acessory after the fact is he not. Why isn't he turning Cheney over to the international community?

How is he an accessory after the fact? Please cite the law and apply the facts for me. I'm done doing your research for you.

 

Her you go Carly, the part of the law that you were looking for.

An accessory to a crime is any individual who knowingly and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime. An accessory is not typically present at the scene of the crime, but contributes to the success of the crime before or after the fact. A person charged as an accessory to a crime before the fact is one who incites, abets, or aids a person in the commission of a criminal act. An individual who is an accessory after the fact receives, shelters, comforts, relieves, or assists a felon after the crime has been committed. A person can be an accessory if they provide any support or assistance, whether financially, emotionally, or factually.

Obviously if BO consideres Cheney a war criminal he is providing shelter from the international community. He is relieved & comforted in the notion that he won't be turned over to the authorities. Things that make you HMMMMM?!!?

And, again, if Cheney is (which he isn't) a war criminal then Bo may not be A&A but he is an acessory after the fact is he not. Why isn't he turning Cheney over to the international community?

Ah.... You are really thick sometimes also. I, of course, do not believe BO is a war criminal. No more so than I do Cheney is one. War criminals are people like Hitler, stalin, Hussein. I was just giving you some of your own medicine to show how anyone can say anything when they start with the answer. You think Cheney is a war criminal so you have to find the evidence. You are not so good at realizing the differences between good people making hard decisions and manaical mad man killing people and detroying property for sheer personal or political gain. I do feel sorry for you though if that helps.

Yeah. You were just kidding. Sigh.

 

You don't have to be Hitler, Stalin, or Hussein to be a war criminal. Just ordering the torture of captives is sufficient.

 

Cheney is a war criminal. I agree that he probably thought torturing captives was in the best interests of the United States. It simply doesn't matter. Torture is a war crime. Cheney ordered the torturing of captives. Therefore, Cheney is a war criminal. And no . . . I'm not kidding.

Wheee, this fun in kiddie land going around on the carousel. Cheney is not and you are delusional if you think he is a war criminal. But, again, thanks to these great United Staes of America you can make any crazy assumptrion you want, it is not against the law. Have a great day and don't forget to ride the Matterhorn!!

There is only one reason to thank the POTUS since he took office and that is he took out UBL. America's greatness was not diminished other than in your mind. BO ended it and I really am apathetic to the tactic but I do take umbrage calling a VP or POTUS a war criminal.

Unless that POTUS is Obama. http://www.huskerboa...post__p__949982 (Again . . . you're really bad at this. You seem to have a pathological aversion to consistency.)

 

 

oBUMa is a war criminal for all the drone killings and all the innocent women and children he has killed with those drones ( can you say collateral damage).

 

Dick Cheney is a war criminal. I'm sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities.

Ah.... You are really thick sometimes also. I, of course, do not believe BO is a war criminal. No more so than I do Cheney is one. War criminals are people like Hitler, stalin, Hussein. I was just giving you some of your own medicine to show how anyone can say anything when they start with the answer. You think Cheney is a war criminal so you have to find the evidence. You are not so good at realizing the differences between good people making hard decisions and manaical mad man killing people and detroying property for sheer personal or political gain. I do feel sorry for you though if that helps.

There is only one reason to thank the POTUS since he took office and that is he took out UBL. America's greatness was not diminished other than in your mind. BO ended it and I really am apathetic to the tactic but I do take umbrage calling a VP or POTUS a war criminal.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how screwed up yours is, that's what makes America great. God bless you and God bless America!!!

He intended to drop the bombs knowing there would be innocent people dying. He knew he would kill innocent people I think that is the intent.

And if you use that logic with waterboarding then you can't do anything to make an enemy combatant uncomfortable. I never said it was a ride at Disney did I? Of course it made the men uncomfortable, I don't think you are going to get information from them giving them a big mac meal and letting them watch porn.