Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 62
  1. #41  
    [QUOTE=treobk214]"how many times have we tried to tell you radicals and muslims are not the same?"

    when did I say muslims and terrorists were the same in my last post, kyp?
    [QUOTE]

    You implied it here:

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    democrats are about undermining the war, prosecuting american soldiers while defending the rights of those who would blow themselves up, destroy our cities & slaughter our people
    The Rights of Muslims are being defended..not the barbaric people you are describing..
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  2. #42  
    go ahead and be disgusted, kyp. disgust, disgust, disgust. tell me that at every opportunity. go ahead.

    I would think however that the majority would be more disgusted at those who defend the rights of terrorists who plot against america and behead our people - THAT, kyp, disgusts me.

    in my view that's stupid,that is tunnel visioned, that's disgusting - "i won't lie"
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by KypDurron
    ...Block hispanics from raising in power? What the hell are you talking about? we try to block anyone that is CORRUPT. I'm hispanic myself and will never want a hispanic elected JUST BECAUSE HE IS HISPANIC.
    What does it all mean

    Thursday, Jan. 6, 2005 11:19 a.m. EST

    Cisneros and Sen. Salazar Back Gonzales

    Uh oh: It looks as if Democrats' attempts to smear Alberto Gonzales are bombing with the Hispanics the party has been so eager to keep from continuing to flee the Democrat barrio.

    Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado, one of the only two Democrat freshmen in the Senate (in contrast with the seven new Republicans, including Mel Martinez), has already said he intends to vote for Gonzales as attorney general.

    Henry Cisneros, one of the very few prominent Latinos in the Clinton administration, writes in the Wall Street Journal:

    In the 36 years that I have voted, I have supported and voted for only one Republican. That was when Alberto Gonzales ran for election to the Texas Supreme Court. I messaged friends about this uncommonly capable and serious man, I urged them to support his campaign financially, and voted for him. He is now President Bush's nominee to be Attorney General of the United States and I urge his confirmation. ...

    Of all the positions in the cabinet, it has been traditionally understood both by the Senate and by the American public that the president needs a trusted adviser in the attorney general's job. That was understood when President Kennedy named his brother Robert to the post. The Senate has in practice respected the fact that if the president wants a key individual to anchor his inner circle of cabinet advisers, he should be allowed to have that person. The public also accepts the fact that if the nominees have proven capabilities and have no egregious disqualifying attributes, the president should get to name his team.

    In this case, Judge Gonzales is better qualified than many recent attorneys general. ...

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...6/113511.shtml
    Last edited by clairegrrl; 01/07/2005 at 10:13 AM.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  4. #44  
    no kyp, I will say this again.

    you are defending the rights of prisoners of war... prisoners of war.. not muslim civilians... prisoners of war. there that should be sufficient.

    dems are worried about how prisoners of war are treated as opposed to how our enemies are treating AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
  5. #45  
    Maybe your problem is that you are always trying to create differences when there aren't any.
    The rights of Prisoners of war captured by the U.S. and the right of U.S. captured in war are ONE AND THE SAME. You are being hypocritical. You believe that all rules apply to everyone but you. That's not the case.
    I believe in justice. It is hypocritical to demand rights for you, but not give those same rights back to others.

    To clarify: All prisoners of War should not have any human right violations.
    Justice should be served to those that violate those rights. What do I mean by justice? they should be captured if possible, tried and prosecuted for their crimes.
    Still be given rights, even if they did not give those rights themselves. Never sink to their barbaric ways. I feel that people that did the beheadings should be killed. Part of me agrees with the Muslim tradition of eye for an eye. Maybe they should suffer the same way. I agree in the death penalty. I don't know if there is such a thing as a 'humane execution'. I know that beheading is not it. I know that hangings are not it. Maybe they should be tortured you think? made to suffer as much as possible? I think not. Kill them swiftly I think.
    but the point is, there is NO difference between US prisoners of war and U.S. men captured in war. All should be treated as humane as possible. Prosecute those that violate it.
    White House Chief Counsel Alberto Gonzales felt that US shouldn't give human rights. Colin Powell strongly disagreed with him. I agree with Powell.
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  6. #46  
    kyp, you mention hypocrisy.

    you know, what i've found MOST interesting, is that while you clamor for rights of all prisoners of war, the FIRST side the democrats came to defend were those of the enemy prisoners.

    the dems made such a case for this. rather than express outrage against american beheadings, dems expressed outrage against enemy prisoner treatment. that was disturbing.

    it was disturbing how LITTLE airtime each beheading case received as opposed to the airtime given to the prisoners of abu graib (mispelled im sure) or guantanamo bay.

    its unnerving to hear how democrats express more concern over what we do to our prisoners as opposed to what our enemy does to us.

    that's what im talking about.
  7.    #47  
    Now then, is she crying because of intimidated voters? Or is it because the hated evil empire of the mighty Republican Party who cheats, steals and intimidates is in for four more years? Let me guess...

    Check it out..
  8. #48  
    I have no control over what gets airtime and what doesn't. What channels do you watch? what newspapers do you read? which news websites do you visit? I feel that some of these sources are biased. I stopped watching my local news channel (Long Island channel 12) because it it extremely biased.
    That being said, it is unnerving to hear anyone express concerns for what we do to prisoners as opposed to what our enemy does to us.
    I feel the same way when people are made out to be heros, like Amber Frey.
    But to make a blanket statement that the Democrats feel that way is wrong. Republicans are also expressing concerns. Most Democrats do not feel more concern for our prisoners than our own people.
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  9.    #49  
    The democratic party should be change to the Delusional Party...

    Typical type party stance is...
    Accuse and see if it sticks. I'll never forget Al Gore repeating ad-nauseum the phrases of "fuzzy math" and "tax scheme".
  10.    #50  
    Regarding Abughraib prison. I will anyday put underwear on my head, naked in front of a woman soldier than having my head sawed off.
  11. #51  
    You could say the same thing about the republican party.
    Bill Clinton got accused of MANY, MANY things, including murder.
    He got impeached for lying about getting a blow job. Nothing else "stuck".
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  12.    #52  
    The accusations of potential murder came from tv pundits not Senators. The blow job thing wasn't an accusation it was fact.

    The fact is the Democratic Party is in disarray and reaching for straws. They have a huge problem in that they don't stand together. I don't blame the masses of Dem Senators not joining in on blocking the inauguration, it's simply sour grapes and my avatar explains that perfectly. If I were a democrat I would be demanding changes with my politicians. I would start by worrying about my own party not the Republican Party.

    Quote Originally Posted by KypDurron
    You could say the same thing about the republican party.
    Bill Clinton got accused of MANY, MANY things, including murder.
    He got impeached for lying about getting a blow job. Nothing else "stuck".
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I don't blame the masses of Dem Senators not joining in on blocking the inauguration, it's simply sour grapes and my avatar explains that perfectly.
    I really could care less if the inauguration is blocked or not, makes no difference to me. It is symbolic at best, in practical sense, Bush is still president.

    Why are you having such a major tizzy fit about it?
  14. #54  
    Good point. I am almost as digusted (yes, my 'word' for this week) with the Democrats as I am with the Republicans. Finding a good politician that I believe in is getting harder and harder. I have stated in other discussions that I have voted for both republicans and democrats before. To me, certain Republicans are so blantanly against what I believe in, and the majority of the few (this is not a contradiction here...there are few people and most of that group) that I do like are Democrats.
    Remember: You are an unique, individual person...just like everyone else
  15.    #55  
    I'm having a 'tizzy' about it because what the minority of Democratic Senators did was wrong. I'm sick of our politicians fighting and getting absolutely nothing done. I really don't expect you to understand, considering you could "care less if the inauguration is blocked or not, makes no difference to me". It was more of blocking the inaugaration, it was to invalidate the presidential election.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I really could care less if the inauguration is blocked or not, makes no difference to me. It is symbolic at best, in practical sense, Bush is still president.

    Why are you having such a major tizzy fit about it?
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    Too ridiculous to be believable? You need to pay more attention to the nults and bolts of how politics really works. Don't you realize how much of the Democrats money in this election cycle came from people who are still fired up about the 2000 election? That's how it works, on both sides.

    But it apparently is not too ridiculous to believe crackpot conspiracy theories about how Republican CEOs are rigging voting machines nationwide with impunity.
    OK, I'll give you that... I shouldn't have used those words. But on the other hand, calling something you don't believe a "crackpot conspiracy theory" does nothing but insult the people who believe it.

    I don't know for a fact that the CEOs of these companies did do anything to change the outcome of the election. Here's (just a little) of what I do know about it:

    1. The CEO of Diebold wrote in a letter to Republicans that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." Ohio used Diebold machines.

    2. I wouldn't trust these machines to do my banking. If Diebold tried to sell these machines to banks, they'd get laughed at, and they know it. They also make ATMs - much more secure, and with paper trails. Why shouldn't we insist our votes are counted on machines with paper trails? Why don't they have them? The only explanation I can come up with is the people who make them don't want them to - they have the "technology" to print out a receipt inside the machine. They just choose not to use it.

    Seriously, why do we trust the election of our leaders to machines that banks wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole? Regardless of whether or not it's intentional on anyone's part, it's something that should be fixed. But Republicans and the CEOs of these companies are actually fighting it. Bush in 2000 said "hand recounts introduce errors." Because we all know the machines are perfect.

    3. We need more transparency in the counting of votes. In Warren County, OH, the building was completely locked down and reporters couldn't even look in the window during the counting. This was because of some report the supposedly got about a terror threat from the FBI. The FBI has denied any such threat.

    There's plenty more, but it doesn't matter, because it's just a "crackpot conspiracy theorist" who wants secure and trustworthy voting machines.
    Units - Unit conversion for webOS!
    Treo 180->270->600->650->Blackberry Pearl->Palm Pre
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by metsfan
    2. I wouldn't trust these machines to do my banking. If Diebold tried to sell these machines to banks, they'd get laughed at, and they know it. They also make ATMs - much more secure, and with paper trails. Why shouldn't we insist our votes are counted on machines with paper trails? Why don't they have them? The only explanation I can come up with is the people who make them don't want them to - they have the "technology" to print out a receipt inside the machine. They just choose not to use it.
    While conspiracy is possible (and infinitely more fun to debate), it is likely that the machines do not have paper trails because a paper trail was not defined as a functional requirement in the contract.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    While conspiracy is possible (and infinitely more fun to debate), it is likely that the machines do not have paper trails because a paper trail was not defined as a functional requirement in the contract.
    That's quite likely true. So the next logical question becomes: Why not?

    I can't find anything offhand at the moment, because it's not current news, but I know I read many times last year that the Republicans, Diebold, and ES&S fought hard for it specifically to not be in the contract. I'll try to find links for that, but I don't know if I'll be able to. I'm positive it's true, though.

    So given that, you have to next ask... why are they so against producing a machine with paper trails? What do they have to hide? Why don't they want transparent, trustworthy elections?
    Units - Unit conversion for webOS!
    Treo 180->270->600->650->Blackberry Pearl->Palm Pre
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by KypDurron
    ...

    To clarify: All prisoners of War should not have any human right violations.
    Justice should be served to those that violate those rights. What do I mean by justice? they should be captured if possible, tried and prosecuted for their crimes.
    Still be given rights, even if they did not give those rights themselves. Never sink to their barbaric ways. I feel that people that did the beheadings should be killed. Part of me agrees with the Muslim tradition of eye for an eye. Maybe they should suffer the same way. I agree in the death penalty. I don't know if there is such a thing as a 'humane execution'. I know that beheading is not it. I know that hangings are not it. Maybe they should be tortured you think? made to suffer as much as possible? I think not. Kill them swiftly I think.
    but the point is, there is NO difference between US prisoners of war and U.S. men captured in war. All should be treated as humane as possible. Prosecute those that violate it....

    Regarding the humane treatment of prisoners. The Geneva Convention states that
    1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

    To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

    (a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

    (b) Taking of hostages;

    (c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

    (d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

    2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

    Also says that
    A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

    1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

    2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

    (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    (c) That of carrying arms openly;

    (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

    4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

    5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

    6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

    B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

    1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

    2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.


    Now I read quite a bit of this document and it doesnt say anything about terrorists. They are not part of a specified military with easliy identiciable markings, dont answer to one commander who is responsible etc etc. Now maybe I am a right wing wacko because I have drawn this conclusion, but I would say the GC doesnt apply to them. And since they are clearly not adhering to it when we DO qualify then why the hell should we adhere when they clearly don't? Don't talk to me about being nice and all that crap. All these people understand is death and violence against ANYONE and thats all we should give them.

    Kill em all, let God sort them out.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  20. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by metsfan
    But on the other hand, calling something you don't believe a "crackpot conspiracy theory" does nothing but insult the people who believe it.
    Fair enough. But here's the problem with this so-called conspiracy. In order to believe it, you have to believe:

    That these people would actually think they could get away with it in the first place.

    That everyone involved in the production, programming and distribution of these machines has been sworn to secrecy and and nobody has spilled the beans. Not for money, not a disgruntled employee in the lot, etc. etc.

    That despite these charges being made public, the combined resources of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, etc. obviously haven't turned up a shred of evidence to support them. If they had, this would be the #1 story in America.

    And that the Democratic party must be complicit, since obviously they have heard the charges and have remained silent, although the last time I checked, the Democrats were not in the business of losing elections on purpose.

    I think you have to be pretty far out on the fringe to buy into this set of assumptions.
    Talldog
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions