Lucky...

Now you get to determine if, who and why anybody makes a reply?? You are full of yourself today already Do you even bother to take the time to understand the posts you reply to? Let me hit you over the head with it: (a) I think Lucky is trolling. (b) I think you fell for it. Nothing more; nothing less. I know hes tolling But YOU want to control my fun???? GET OVER YOURSELF DUDE! I'm not tolling, how is misdirecting, fun? It's a survival strategy for conservatives.

kind of like where in one country the planet was given standing A lawyer smorgasbord HUH? http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/02/05/18637075.php OK, so they revered the earth as a legally defensable entity with rights, what a foreign concept to look at something so fundamentally important as having rights. Perhaps they did so to further environmental rights. Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread; animals should have rights too - see if you can stay focused.

kind of like where in one country the planet was given standing A lawyer smorgasbord HUH?

Everything I saw or read pertaining to waterboarding indicated that the practice produces the intense fear of drowning. It does not create physical pain. How is fear equated with torture? Creating fear to motivate or modify someone's behavior is an everyday occurrence. Fear, in some form, was emphasized in every position I ever held. If you choose to respond, base your response on the concept that fear equals torture. OK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. Also... Psychological torture is less well known than physical torture and tends to be subtle and much easier to conceal. In practice the distinctions between physical and psychological torture are often blurred.[citation needed] Physical torture is the inflicting of severe pain or suffering on a person. In contrast, psychological torture is directed at the psyche with calculated violations of psychological needs, along with deep damage to psychological structures and the breakage of beliefs underpinning normal sanity. Torturers often inflict both types of torture in combination to compound the associated effects.[citation needed] Psychological torture also includes deliberate use of extreme stressors and situations such as mock execution, shunning, violation of deep-seated social or sexual norms and taboos, or extended solitary confinement. Because psychological torture needs no physical violence to be effective, it is possible to induce severe psychological pain, suffering, and trauma with no externally visible effects ___________________ So psychological torture applies as well. Telling a person you're going to kill a family member if they don't do XYZ is a form of torture, even tho no one has been hurt. To say waterboarding is not torture is ridiculous. ------------------------------------------------------ The Justice Dept revised the defintion at the end of 2004 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37687-2004Dec30.html Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin said in the new memo that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain and thus may include mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish. His opinion is meant, according to its language, to undermine any notion that those who conduct harmful interrogations may be exempt from prosecution.

Not sure that's true, what do you base that upon?

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/police-credit-dog-for-saving-lost-toddlers-life/19366699?icid=main|main|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Fpolice-credit-dog-for-saving-lost-toddlers-life%2F19366699 Police Credit Dog With Saving Lost Girl's Life I hope they aren't scum and have the dog sleep outside in a doghouse, before or after that event. If there were coyotes, that dog would have died fighting to save her. Animal cruelty laws should be written to essentially give animls the rights/protections humans have.

Only if I get the last word

Saying he was a war hero that was connected to a corrupt admin is an attack? OK. As for the gramma reference, I didn't tell you the good and bad of her life and that I called it before, during and after her death? Yes I did. The mods, who can read PM's surely know you lied there. I did answer in PM's; you're not only lying but grandstanding.

The kissee. LOL

Saying Haig was or was perceived as corrupt and heavily tied to teh Nixon admin isn't an attack, you may not like it, but it's not an attack. That would be like a Clinton relative becoming offended when Clinton dies adn people say, "He did a great job fixing the economy, but he couldn't keep his dick in his pants." It's just reality. As I asked in PM as I replied to you, you saw a thread entitled as it was, authored by me; what did you expect?

Good . I think it's a fair assessment, not sure why some get offended.

Of course you admire A Haig, he was teied to Watergate, got a promotion from 2 to 4 stars by Nixon over other qualified candidates. The best you can do is call me a troll. Look, we can trade fuck you's in private, but then, as with all connies, you block me. SO what you want is a public spectacle and to have the mods rubberstamp it, and you infer I'm the crybaby? And I love this: RIP to a great man, Alexander Haig,... But 80% of your post was about me while petitiojning for it not to be. Connies can't help but to ad hominem. Too bad there were no computers in the 1860's, then the Dems could have looked bad online by running from all data/evidence.

Unbelievable. I know, how could such a war hero be tied to such corrpution? Oh well, it happens. No, that you can't even reign in your attacks in an obit thread. Of course, given your past history, I really shouldn't have expected anything better of you. Given that again, he's trying to cite an AP news source instead of the Onion or wikipedia, is causing me to pause on motive here. Oh! Trying to regain credibility, but alas, that was lost. If only there was a way to channel some of this angst. The VA has programs for that...if only he knew about them. And when I cite gov data Mike skews it and you ignore it, so what really matters?

UPDATE: Good news forr you, my grandmother is ill; i'll keep you informed of her condition and if it turns worse you can celebrate it by starting a thread in glee of it. If we celebrated someone else's death and spoke poorly of them we'd be fucking ignorant assholes. And that's what rhaig was talking about doing. Wait a minute, Alexander Haig : rhaig....hmmmmm, is there a relationship???? look who just caught up. Never occurred to me either way, I don't put a lot in people's usenames.

Right and when your party spends thru its ass and cuts taxes, that's what leads to high deficits, hence debts. Why is it hard for you to understand. Considering the Republicans since Reagan, absent GHWB, have set records for spending that are insane and they received deficit/debt structures that were stable and left nightmares, IT IS THE LOW TAXES THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. GHWB cut spending and slightly increased taxes and thus was voted out. Clinton cut spending more and raised taxes more and thx to teh start GHWB gave him, fixed the mess; TAX INCREASES WERE A BIG PART OF THIS. To further answer your inane point, whatever it was, we have experienced the better times in the US when taxes were high: - 1940's - 1950's - 1960's Worst times when taxes were low: - 1980's - 2000's Altho taxes were high in the 1930's, well, mid-1932 to be exact, it took time to fix the low tax mess that the Coolidge/harding duo created with the cuts in 1925 that led to the GD. Thinks immediately improved as Hoover raised taxes and FDR followed with mor eraises and social programs. True, unless taxes are high enough, then high spending can occur. This is why Reagan and GWB are/were such poison and GHWB and Clinton were such saints; the former 2 blew up spending and cut taxes, the latter 2 did the opposite. Most spending dpnw in the last year have been on teh war(s) and economic recovery since GWb ignored the mess as if low int rates are a good thing and house prices doubling are good as well. True, but let's not forget GHWB who inherited that fascist pig's mess and had to fall on the sword to save the country by raising taxes and cut the military. As well, he had the Gulf War to contend with. When I hear people think Reagan did a great job I know I am witnessing a treuly delluded person. And the congress from JAn 89 - Jan 95 was also very good too. Deal with it. I don't think it's punitive, you do; you peceive it as ounishment, I perceive it as realignment. Just as some people are good at swimming in the olympics and earning several gold medals, others are good at compling a lot of money, most who have these skills are born with these skills. So if we don't level the playing field somewhat, there will be peopel drowing all over, so I'm sorry you look at it as punishment, I don't - that's like saying those who win silver are being punished for not being fast enough. Yep and we've done best for sustained periods with the top brkt > 50%. Of course there are many other factors like war, economic, etc. We've had the top brkt in the 20's% twice: 1925 and 1986 and guess what happened? Even the 30's are dangerous. I've never passed myself as an expert on the subject and I don't see anyone here that I would consider an economic expert, but if you don't think tax write-offs motivate donations then I esp wouldn't consider you one. You know you have a novice when the other side shifts the issue from the economy to an ad hominem tho. A very vague assertion/question/???. WHat Hoover did, FDR did to eventually move to a 94% top brkt were all for the right reasons. The GD called for it, WWII needed it. Eisenhower left them high, but then we had to enter the Korean Conflict too. Unless we quit the warring, taxes must get and stay high, good reasons or bad. Now if you want to spell out the bad reasons for tax increases, then I will decide whether I agree or not. If you're saying taxes are a neccessary evil, ok I'll agree, but, "all the wrong reasons;" convince me.

UPDATE: Good news forr you, my grandmother is ill; i'll keep you informed of her condition and if it turns worse you can celebrate it by starting a thread in glee of it. If we celebrated someone else's death and spoke poorly of them we'd be fucking ignorant assholes. And that's what rhaig was talking about doing. Wait a minute, Alexander Haig : rhaig....hmmmmm, is there a relationship????

I forgive you.

Actually, as I recall the thread flowed, I posted how great the GDP was improving, you said it wasn't or referenced GWB's failure as not as bad, so I continually asked for your source for which you wouldn't give me one. I eventually figured out that you were using nominal data since you never posted any source; paramount to dishonesty. On the rare occassion you post data you almost never post a source but an attachment, when asked for the source you say, "I got the data from the same place you got the data." That's not true? What are you talking about? I've alwasy shown real GDP, where have I not and where have I "modified" any post to that effect?

In his context, in his time, the 1940's-60's, that was the way to achieve his goal. If you want to take out of context anything, you can a point out of everything. Look at his political partner, if you will: Malcom X. His agenda was violence-based and he was unsuccessful until he adopted MLK's after MLK's assassination. Then his won killed him, but the ideal of nonviolence lived on and he was celebrated for it. In this context, intra-country strife in the 1950's, violence just emboldens the enemy. What would happen if there were no MLK? Everytime a balck activist did something radical, killed someone, etc, the enemy would say: "See, we need more police and less rights to the blacks; they're tyrants." Please, if you can, keep things in context. Unless you have no argument, then feel free to convolute everything.

If you can't make a point, I feel bad for you. I make my points in a comprehensive manner, you....well; not so much.

Yep, a former conservative friend of mine was in that school, he thought it had to be done by a foreign faction to be terrorism. I asked if he thought the OK city bombing was terrorism, of course he said it wasn't. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism ter·ror·ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. Yes, OK City was terrorism, this guy in Austin was a terrorist and Hiroshima / Nagisaki were acts of terrorism, as they were directed at civilian populations. when I think of "what is terrorism" I lean towards 'an act creating terror'. Clearly the book definition includes that, but also extends it. My first thought was that neither OKC or the Cherokee into the IRS building here, were terrorism. However the "for political purposes" in the first definition and the third definition clearly would include those two acts. If I were to have answered that poll, I would have been with those 65%. I can only assume that some (not all, and not even a large portion) of them were using an incomplete definition as I was. Yep, when I first learned that terrorism must have a political component it was a little awakening too. But it makes sense, the terror is to achieve a goal, if it's sporadic violence, there is no fear left afterward or during. It's kind of meaningless to define the different types of nuts who perpetuate these atrocities, but it's also important so we can understand and prevent. Most peopel call all mass murderers, spree killers as serial killers, whne they are all 3 different and none are generally terorrists even tho they create terror. Take Son of Sam, I think he was after brunettes, so women died their blond or red if memory serves. But hair color is not political, so he wasn't a terrorist. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were political targets in that we wanted to coerce the men of Japan to succumb to a full surrender rather than a conditional one, which they had agreed. The dropping of the bombs wasn't terrorism until we did so against non-military targets to intentionally kill civilians. There can be a fine line between military ops and terrorism, but planning mo9nths in advance to kill women and children to persuade the men to no longer fight and surrender surely meets that standard, regardless of teh rationalization of need.

Are you familiar with what a controlled experiment is? Gee, no; Indep variable, dep variable, standard.....not at all. Make a point.

Then why not search The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute or some other nationalist rag and show me their skewed version. You can't/won't even show me a bunch of lies, let alone truths. So jumping to their deaths = fighting US servicemen? Furthermore, that was a small Japanese-occupied island, that doesn't reference that the women and children of Hiroshima/Nagasaki would have killed US/allied servicemen. I didn't see reference to Japanese women and children on occupied Tarawa, and even if there were, I saw nothing to illustrate that they would have killed US/allied servicemen. Again and on top of that, you have yet to honestly label the women and children of the 5 cities the US targeted with the Manhattan Project as military combatants. Do that and then you have started to make a point. No I'm not, I'm just reading history in its context for what it was then. Show where the women and children of the 5 cities were military members, enemy combatants, etc. WHat slant about the 5 cities? It's your conspiracy to prove to show how the women and children were part of teh active military. So what is your point with the rhetorical question of OK city?

Fixed it

UPDATE: Good news forr you, my grandmother is ill; i'll keep you informed of her condition and if it turns worse you can celebrate it by starting a thread in glee of it.