23 of 25
23
Will Rumsfeld and others be prosecuted for war crimes?
Posted: 18 May 2009 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 331 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

You know, for folks who eschew a belief in a religion, many people here apparently worship at the alter of the Almighty Democrat Party. They are the saviors of the world, battling the purely evil Republicans, etc. How pathetic to see otherwise logical folks sucked up by politics.

Please name names.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2009 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 332 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  262
Joined  2008-06-13
omnibus09 - 18 May 2009 10:17 AM

You know, for folks who eschew a belief in a religion, many people here apparently worship at the alter of the Almighty Democrat Party. They are the saviors of the world, battling the purely evil Republicans, etc. How pathetic to see otherwise logical folks sucked up by politics.

NO ONE WILL END UP IN JAIL!! Bet on it. This is only a political pay-back…nothing more. Obama has already reneged on Gitmo trials, the photos, ending the Iraq war, and various other issues. He is smart enough to understand that Pelosi’s abject partisan stupidity has severely hurt the changes for the Dems to further inflict a vengeful damage on the last administration and it’s members. Even Paneta has come to the defense of the CIA after Pelosi accused that Agency of continually misleading her.

She is guilty of no crime, unless being a partisan idiot is a violation of the law. Conyers, Waxman, and she all need to realize that they are now going nowhere with these revenge/sour grape attacks and move on to something with some substance. Like energy policy and health care.

Again, this is simply Whitewater and the Impeachment in reverse, payback and revenge…

Let me assure you that I have no particular faith in, nor loyalty to, the Democratic party.  Political parties seem to exist to perpetuate themselves, I’m more interested in the people that come forward as supposed leaders of the parties.

I disagree that this is equivalent to Whitewater or the Clinton impeachment trial.  I don’t care about a questionable land deal, and am not particularly interested if a politician lies about their sexual activities. 

But, I most definitely DO want to hear about what decision makers knew about detention and interrogation policies.  ON ALL SIDES!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2009 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 333 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  323
Joined  2009-02-18

Chris Crawford.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2009 01:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 334 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

OK, Omni, so you make the accusation that I “worship at the alter of the Almighty Democrat Party.” and that I perceive the Democratic party as “the saviors of the world, battling the purely evil Republicans, etc.”

That’s bullshit. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

In the first place, I have voted for a few Republican candidates in my lifetime (although none recently). I have also voted for Libertarian candidates in a couple of cases. So that right there refutes your accusation. It’s pretty hard to worship at an altar when you vote against it.

More importantly, I differ from Democratic orthodoxy on a number of points. I’m a strong believer in free trade, which definitely makes me a heretic. I believe in environmentalism for cost-benefit reasons, not spiritual ones. I much prefer to implement a variety of policies through taxes than through command systems. And I support income redistribution for reasons of social health, not empathy.

So your accusation is completely false. The mistake you make is to underestimate those with whom you disagree, to assume that, because they disagree with you, they must be stupid. And whenever you underestimate those you differ with, you only make yourself look dumb.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2009 06:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 335 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Quote Omninus09 “You know, for folks who eschew a belief in a religion, many people here apparently worship at the alter of the Almighty Democrat Party. They are the saviors of the world, battling the purely evil Republicans, etc. How pathetic to see otherwise logical folks sucked up by politics.”

Omni, I have to admire your clear thinking, decisive, fact-driven argument, without any rancor, insults, ad hominum and other critical thinking erroneous attacks.  Your logic is mind-boggling.  That is, it would be if you had a mind to boggle. 

Were I to sink to your level, I might say that you demonstrate the same moronic name-calling used by Republicans who can’t think of any intelligent arguments against the forward-looking programs being proposed by the Democrats.  But I won’t say that.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2009 09:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 336 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  262
Joined  2008-06-13

Occam,

While I have a hard time finding any of the republicans on the national scene, outside the senators from Maine, that I think much of, I’m not all that thrilled with a lot of the dems either.  Pelosi and Reid have been thoroughly unimpressive thus far.  While my pragmatic, cynical side tells me that all the political posturing on both sides is going nowhere, I’d sure like to see some information come to light about these meetings with members of congress and the intelligence agencies.  Leaving aside the idea of prosecutions, I think it would just be nice to know what happened.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2009 11:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 337 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Hawk, as a very liberal Democrat I would love to defend Pelosi and Reid, but I really can’t.  One is a flake and the other is a wimp.  The only defense would be the tu quoque (you do it too) critical thinking error by pointing out all the crackpots in the Republican who have been spouting off insanity.  The problem seems to be endemic among national and state politicians in all three branches of government.  I don’t know if my memory has rose-colored glasses, but I seem to recall that they weren’t all that bad twenty to fifty years ago.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2009 01:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 338 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

.....make that EIGHT years ago!!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2009 08:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 339 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

Has there EVER been a time when we held Congress and its leaders in esteem? Have we not ALWAYS bitched and moaned about the weak-willed leaders, the idiotic compromises, and the lack of principle? Does this tell us that good people can’t get elected to Congress? Or does it tell us that the mechanics of democracy are intrinsically foul? Do we dream of a strong President because we have no patience for the ugliness of political compromise?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2009 04:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 340 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I’m afraid it tells us that “People get the government they deserve.”  I was shocked to hear that most highschools no longer require or even offer Civics or Political Science classes. 

And, I do think that while Congress as a whole may not have been held in high esteem, many of the legislators and members of the judicial and executive branches were well respected by most of the public in the past.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2009 07:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 341 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  262
Joined  2008-06-13

Another example of the cognitive dissonance that’s out there are those polls in which people give poor marks to congress as a whole, but good ratings to their rep.  Granted those polls are simplistic.  But, it seems unlikely that the body is so bad, yet the individuals are just fine.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2009 08:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 342 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  699
Joined  2008-10-26

Just a question:  what has the current discussion got to do with the title of the thread?

Mods?  Wouldn’t a new thread called something like, “Continued Disrespect For Washington’s Finest?”, be more appropriate?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2009 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 343 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

After 22 pages most threads have long ago run their course.  When people have said all they want to or get bored with that thread topic, they often take side trips, and that’s fine.  As a humanist forum, we try to be accepting of wide variations in behavior and topic.  Sorry if you’d prefer a more controlled, authorian structure.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2009 06:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 344 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  699
Joined  2008-10-26
Occam - 22 May 2009 09:49 AM

After 22 pages most threads have long ago run their course.  When people have said all they want to or get bored with that thread topic, they often take side trips, and that’s fine. Occam

Fine in who’se judgement? 

In this case, the issue is very much alive and because of Mr. Rumsfeld’s friends (Cheney, especially) and their open arrogance, the question raised in the thread is very much alive and well.

What bothers me is that in a situation like this, mods could easily maintain the integrity of the thread because of its continued relevance.  But they don’t (unless it interests them).  Why pander to those members whose boredom sidetracks the discussion when you could easily keep it on track by simply putting the bored responses into a new thread.  I’m not interested in a “more authorian structure”; simply a process which allows continued discussion of relevant subject-matter based on the original thread title.

Perhaps, as a loosely applied rule, mods could consider a request from an original thread’s author to help maintain the focus of a thread?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2009 11:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 345 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Sorry our functioning doesn’t meet with your approval.  Maybe you should petition to have our wages lowered.

Occam

Profile
 
 
   
23 of 25
23