Yes, I would probably not have voted for Lieberman. Would I say never ? No. I respect the man and under the right circumstances I might vote for him because he's one of the few IMO that does what tells him is best for the country. My point was that one can criticize and engage in all the politicking one wants without undermining our efforts. That's exactly what people like Teddy the sub driver are doing.
Well, could you let us on the other side know the right way, Rob.
So we don't get out of line.
I think it's common sense and pretty easy for many to discern what should be acceptable or should proper, it doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it. But when Kennedy says things like that, does it help his party ? Does it help his country ? I don't think so do you ?
There answer is: the line moves. In the end, Democrats were going to get branded with those charges at some point in this election so we might as well get it done early. That's because we had the audacity to run a candidate when the nation was "at war" and in the kind of war that is ill defined and has no clear end.
I disagree, you claimed that republicans claimed victim status all the time it seems to me that now Dems are doing the same. I think most people know where that line is. Statements like like Patty Murray's and Ted Kennedys of the world do little to promote their party nor their nation. Do they have every right to say what they want? You bet, how do the voters percieve it ? We'll find out in November.
Only to oversensitive politically correct people, that are searching for anything...
I by no means meant anything racist. There's nothing in my statement to make anyone think such a thing.
you would alter it to avoid this appearance.
The thing is, I didn't alter it. I stand by my statement and I don't see it as racist. If I did, then I might possibly change it. I don't want to appear a racist, but if some people stretch that comment to mean such a thing, that's their problem for it had nothing to do with race. None of my comments today had anything to do with race.
it does if you don't reverse it like that.
Huh? I don't get it.
that was one person, wasn't it?
I saw five people in the video. They all share the blame. As does every Al Qaeda member.
I think it's common sense and pretty easy for many to discern what should be acceptable or should proper, it doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it. But when Kennedy says things like that, does it help his party ? Does it help his country ? I don't think so do you ?
Who? -- Seems to me if anything, they're too emboldened.
As for Kennedy, if that's what he thinks then he can say what he wants. Kerry has said he doesn't agree with Kennedy's characterization. But I'm not privy to what either of them know.
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top GOP leaders said Wednesday they oppose the release of hundreds of fresh images showing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, saying they could compromise the prosecution of those soldiers implicated in the acts and further inflame tensions in Iraq."
Now, we've been told in no uncertain terms that the death of Nick Berg had nothing to do with the release of those earlier pictures. And to even think so, was pretty disgusting for anyone to consider. Al Qaeda is the enemy, and they've been carrying out heinous acts, sans pictures.
Now, Frist says more pictures would inflame tension. How can they? The situation is already collapsing.
Those pictures are out there. What I've readi is thay've been e-mail around between the soldiers (!) and I can see them becoming some lurid collectors' item.
Dump them out there and be done with it. They'll just get out into public circulation in drips and drams anyway.
The democrats are. You were just saying how they had the audacity to have a candidate, it's mellow dramatic. Debate, disagree, fine just try to avoid comparing our troops to Saddam Hussein.
As for Kennedy, if that's what he thinks then he can say what he wants. Kerry has said he doesn't agree with Kennedy's characterization. But I'm not privy to what either of them know.
First of all if Kerry disagreed that much he'd tell Ted to have a nice glass of shut the hell up as a chaser to his martinis. He has Teddy doing his leg work for him, then when Teddy goes on some rant, (and he will) Kerry can say, Well I disagree. You know as well as I do that if people wanted Teddy to be mum he would be. Secondly nobody ever said they couldn't say whatever they wanted, they'll be judged accordingly come November. Personally as much as I'd love to see Teddy keep digging to help in the election it's not helping our effort so I'd rather someone in the Democrat party would tell Ted to take a vacation and head in for some more dialisis. I'd take Kennedy to task regardless of what party he was in.
As far as your position on the pictures being released I'd have to agree, get em out, get on with it and get it done and prosecute those guilty. The story is already at saturation levels so they might as well get it done.
As far as your position on the pictures being released I'd have to agree, get em out, get on with it and get it done and prosecute those guilty. The story is already at saturation levels so they might as well get it done.
The damage has already been done. So go ahead and release the rest of the photos. Those quilty of crimes will be punished.
Boston Globe publishes bogus GI rape pictures Taken from pornographic website as first reported by WorldNetDaily  Â
Asked whether the photos were the same as the porn photos WND already investigated, reporter Donovan Slack said, "I have no idea. I'm surprised the editor even decided we should write about it."
She added: "Oh my God, I'm scared to answer the phone today."
"It's insane," said Slack. "Can you imagine getting this with your cup of coffee in the morning? Somehow it got through all our checks. Our publisher's not having a very good day today."
Slack sent the photos to WND, which immediately confirmed they were the same porn photos reported on last week.
Responding to an e-mail request from the Globe, WND furnished the true source of the photos, and walked Slack through the "Sex In War" site over the phone, so she could see the photos matched.
I'll take the 'Five days for $15' deal," Slack quipped, adding, "This is ridiculous. I'll be working at Penthouse soon."
The photos accompanied an article about Boston city councilor Chuck Turner, who distributed the graphic photographs yesterday at a press conference with activist Sadiki Kambon. Turner told reporters the photos showed U.S. soldiers raping Iraqi women.
"The American people have a right and responsibility to see the pictures," Turner said.
Kambon, who is director of the Black Community Information Center, said at the news conference he received the photographs by e-mail from Akbar Muhammad, a representative for the Nation of Islam.
The Globe was provided with a statement by Muhammad who wrote, "There aren't any doubts in my mind about the reports on torture of Iraqi prisoners. All you have to do is look at the pictures of Saddam Hussein after his capture when he was being examined on television across the world. He appeared to be drugged and unaware that he was being filmed to be humiliated and disgraced in front of the entire world."
As WND previously reported, the pornographic 'rape' images were carried, among other venues, on the website for the Committee for the Defense of Saddam Hussein.
In the letter given to the globe, Muhammad termed reservists, "raving beasts," and added, "I was fortunate enough to make copies of the pictures before they became unavailable on the Internet."
The pictures are still on the porn site "Sex In War" and appeared in several Arabic newspapers.
A source with the Globe said the controversy already had reached the president of the New York Times, who reportedly is furious. The Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times Co.
Gee there's a shock, the good old NYT. What's one more bogus story.
Turner said he and Kambon were distributing the photos to force the Bush administration to release additional documentation of abuses, which Turner said are not limited to the prison, west of Baghdad.
At the time of publication of this report, Turner and Kambon were not available for comment.
So far, the Globe hasn't published a retraction. However, as posted on the Free Republic website, a reader who wrote the Globe's ombudsman, Christine Chinlund, received the following e-mail reply:
The Globe should not have run the photo. It appeared as the result of a miscommunication between photo staffers, and a collapse of the usual "checks and balances" system. In my next column I will provide a more detailed explanation of how this lamentable mistake happened. Sincerely, Â Â
Chris Chinlund Globe Ombud  Â
Chinlund's response ended with the following P.S.: "Can you tell me which website is providing the copy for letters like yours? Thanks."
"too" in "fuck you too" means that it's a response to what was perceived as a "fuck you". Since you then implied that the "fuck you TOO" was a sexual overture, you also confirmed that your original "fuck you" was a sexual overture as well...is the one who has spoken for you aware that you think you are making advances to guys on the internet?
The problem with your reasoning is that I never posted "fuck you too".
the "too" clearly implies that I felt you were saying "fuck you" as well, just not in so many words. Hence my having to highlight the word "too" to you.
That you in turn thought that I must have seen it as an implied sexual "fuck you" is telling.
still waiting for that definition of the "one true morality", bodine
crabs, you obviously can't tell the difference between right and wrong. If you can't understand that you can't understand "one true morality."
I'm not asking for my definition,
I'm asking that you show some evidence that you have any understand of a definition of this "one true morality" you speak of.
I can't tell the difference if it's something that you can't even say what it is.
"those people" implies an entire race or religion, not a handful of criminals.
The hell it does. Was that the context of my statement? You're stretching here to serve your purpose.
It's not very precise language and is easily read as a racist comment.
Only to a moron, or someone searching for something that isn't there.
for all I know, he altered his statement when called on it.
Alter it how? You're saying what I said is racist. Why would I alter my statement to appear racist? That makes a lot of sense.
such is the result of saying something as ambiguous and misleading as the phrase "those people"
I was specifically speaking of those that cut the guys head off.
"those people" can imply racism.
you would alter it to avoid this appearance.
it does if you don't reverse it like that.
that was one person, wasn't it?
"those people" can imply racism.
"those people" by itself implies nothing.
it's at best ambiguous.
Rick,
Yes, I would probably not have voted for Lieberman. Would I say never ? No. I respect the man and under the right circumstances I might vote for him because he's one of the few IMO that does what tells him is best for the country. My point was that one can criticize and engage in all the politicking one wants without undermining our efforts. That's exactly what people like Teddy the sub driver are doing.
I think it's common sense and pretty easy for many to discern what should be acceptable or should proper, it doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it. But when Kennedy says things like that, does it help his party ? Does it help his country ? I don't think so do you ?
I disagree, you claimed that republicans claimed victim status all the time it seems to me that now Dems are doing the same. I think most people know where that line is. Statements like like Patty Murray's and Ted Kennedys of the world do little to promote their party nor their nation. Do they have every right to say what they want? You bet, how do the voters percieve it ? We'll find out in November.
"those people" can imply racism.
Only to oversensitive politically correct people, that are searching for anything...
I by no means meant anything racist. There's nothing in my statement to make anyone think such a thing.
you would alter it to avoid this appearance.
The thing is, I didn't alter it. I stand by my statement and I don't see it as racist. If I did, then I might possibly change it. I don't want to appear a racist, but if some people stretch that comment to mean such a thing, that's their problem for it had nothing to do with race. None of my comments today had anything to do with race.
it does if you don't reverse it like that.
Huh? I don't get it.
that was one person, wasn't it?
I saw five people in the video. They all share the blame. As does every Al Qaeda member.
so, every member of the United States Army shares the blame for the torture of Iraqi prisoners?
so, every member of the United States Army shares the blame for the torture of Iraqi prisoners?
The US Army doesn't exist to torture Iraqi prisoners.
Al Qaeda does exist to terrorize and kill innocent people.
they exist to protect people from us....they use extreme measures, to be sure, but they are protecting themselves from us.
and yet, there it is.
they exist to protect people from us....they use extreme measures, to be sure, but they are protecting themselves from us.
Do you write their propoganda for them? Or are you their videographer?
Yeah, they really protected people from us by beheading Nicholas Berg. He was such a threat to them.
and yet, there it is.
So you do believe every US Army soldier is to blame? That our Army exists simply to torture Iraqi Prisoners?
well, you believe that every member of al Quada is to blame for the cutting off of heads.
well, you believe that every member of al Quada is to blame for the cutting off of heads.
Of course I do.
That's why they exist. They admit that's why they exist. It's in their mission statement.
Now, are you saying the US Army is a terrorist organization?
Crabs is just being is normal obnoxious, argumentative self.
Amazing, simply amazing.
how about we start with the CIA first?
"I disagree, you claimed that republicans claimed victim status all the time it seems to me that now Dems are doing the same."
Who? -- Seems to me if anything, they're too emboldened.
Rick,
This was from mmy previous post to you.
I think it's common sense and pretty easy for many to discern what should be acceptable or should proper, it doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it. But when Kennedy says things like that, does it help his party ? Does it help his country ? I don't think so do you ?
Could you explain what you mean ?
About what?
I want to know who's claiming victim status?
As for Kennedy, if that's what he thinks then he can say what he wants. Kerry has said he doesn't agree with Kennedy's characterization. But I'm not privy to what either of them know.
Now, the Republicans confuse me
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top GOP leaders said Wednesday they oppose the release of hundreds of fresh images showing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, saying they could compromise the prosecution of those soldiers implicated in the acts and further inflame tensions in Iraq."
Now, we've been told in no uncertain terms that the death of Nick Berg had nothing to do with the release of those earlier pictures. And to even think so, was pretty disgusting for anyone to consider. Al Qaeda is the enemy, and they've been carrying out heinous acts, sans pictures.
Now, Frist says more pictures would inflame tension. How can they? The situation is already collapsing.
Those pictures are out there. What I've readi is thay've been e-mail around between the soldiers (!) and I can see them becoming some lurid collectors' item.
Dump them out there and be done with it. They'll just get out into public circulation in drips and drams anyway.
I have yet to see torture of Iraqi prisoners. Maybe future pictures will show that. Nothing so far.
The democrats are. You were just saying how they had the audacity to have a candidate, it's mellow dramatic. Debate, disagree, fine just try to avoid comparing our troops to Saddam Hussein.
First of all if Kerry disagreed that much he'd tell Ted to have a nice glass of shut the hell up as a chaser to his martinis. He has Teddy doing his leg work for him, then when Teddy goes on some rant, (and he will) Kerry can say, Well I disagree. You know as well as I do that if people wanted Teddy to be mum he would be.
Secondly nobody ever said they couldn't say whatever they wanted, they'll be judged accordingly come November. Personally as much as I'd love to see Teddy keep digging to help in the election it's not helping our effort so I'd rather someone in the Democrat party would tell Ted to take a vacation and head in for some more dialisis. I'd take Kennedy to task regardless of what party he was in.
As far as your position on the pictures being released I'd have to agree, get em out, get on with it and get it done and prosecute those guilty. The story is already at saturation levels so they might as well get it done.
Luv2Fly 5/12/04 9:37pm
As far as your position on the pictures being released I'd have to agree, get em out, get on with it and get it done and prosecute those guilty. The story is already at saturation levels so they might as well get it done.
The damage has already been done. So go ahead and release the rest of the photos. Those quilty of crimes will be punished.
yea...look at Ken Lay
Rich T 5/12/04 9:45pm
I agree print em.
What crime has Lay been found guilty of?
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Just make sure they're the real ones.
Gee there's a shock, the good old NYT. What's one more bogus story.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38464
Luv2Fly 5/12/04 10:04pm
You don't actually expect the media to verify facts these days do you?
crabgrass 5/12/04 9:45pm
What crimes has Ken Lay been found quilty of?
that's the point exactly...that's for making it.
Luv2Fly 5/12/04 10:04pm
I wonder if the Boston Globe will put a retraction on the front page. I bet they don't.
crabgrass 5/12/04 10:14pm
I see you are being your normal obnoxious argumentative self today.
Rich T 5/12/04 10:18pm
Oh they'll print a retraction. Probably on A23.
yea...fuck you too.
Hope you can recover from that witty retort Rich ;)
Have a good night.
crabgrass 5/12/04 10:28pm
yea...fuck you too.
How sweet of you to offer, but I'm already spoken for.
Luv2Fly 5/12/04 10:35pm
Catch ya later Luv2.
"too"
crabgrass 5/12/04 10:38pm
huh???
not obvious enough for you?
crabgrass 5/12/04 11:17pm
Just what I expected from the likes for you.
Thanks for confirming my opinion of you.
"too" in "fuck you too" means that it's a response to what was perceived as a "fuck you". Since you then implied that the "fuck you TOO" was a sexual overture, you also confirmed that your original "fuck you" was a sexual overture as well...is the one who has spoken for you aware that you think you are making advances to guys on the internet?
crabgrass 5/12/04 11:53pm
The problem with your reasoning is that I never posted "fuck you too".
You did.
See crabgrass 5/12/04 10:28pm
the "too" clearly implies that I felt you were saying "fuck you" as well, just not in so many words. Hence my having to highlight the word "too" to you.
That you in turn thought that I must have seen it as an implied sexual "fuck you" is telling.
crabgrass 5/13/04 12:07am
Spin it homey... spin it.
I expect no less from an obnoxious argumentative person like you.
so, if it's not obvious to you, it's spin.
aren't you a little embarrassed that you had to have it explained to you?