Legal Precedents Regarding Waterboarding

[Iriemon]

ROFLMNAO... So "I said so..." is a negative? Really? Seems more an affirmation...

Again, like I told the other idiot... if you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

LMFAO!

And s/he was lecturing me about how debate boards work!!

"I state this is a fact. Go prove I'm wrong." That's a pretty slick debate technique! LOL!

Let me try it:

I, Iriemon, state that PubliusInfinitum is a closet gay who pretends to be a tough guy ex-soldier so he can pull bullshit "facts" out of his ass without having any basis for them.

If you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

ROTFLMAO!!

Sure... Enoy...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

lol ...

Your response can be summarized as, "Because I said so, now go prove this negative."

Weak.

ROFLMNAO... So "I said so..." is a negative? Really? Seems more an affirmation...

Again, like I told the other idiot... if you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

No, you jackass.

You're citation was the "because I said so" part of the summary and the "prove a negative" was the second part where you wanted a negative to be proven with respect to the Kennedy challenge even though you are the one who made the positive assertion first yet never backed it up.

Weak.

ROFL... So an eyewitness account is tantamount to "Because I said so..."

So naturally, IF one posted www.nytimes/kennedyauthorizedcoerciveinterrogations/vietnam... then that would be what? The end of the debate?

LOL... RIIIIiiiiiiiiiight....

All a link is, is someones opinion of some set of facts... you've my personal eyewitness account of my training, wherein during the CARTER administration we were trained to do exactly what these terrorists are being subjected to...

Now the simple fact is, that were a link provided to some third parties account of the same opinion, you'd cry about that account, the author, their history, their ideology, their personal associations... the same ad hom farce you're trotting out now... and why is that?

It's because ya have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that GW Bush is the only President to authorize such techniques... Well here's the bad news... it's been going on forever... it's going on RIGHT NOW; and it's always going to go on, because when it's needed, it's necessary and the bottom line is... it works.

Now cry all ya like... and should ya find a valid argument, post it and we'll consider that in between the dodging all the pig crap which will no doubt be falling as a result of their newfound means to fly...

 

[DiveCon]

ROFLMNAO... So "I said so..." is a negative? Really? Seems more an affirmation...

Again, like I told the other idiot... if you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

No, you jackass.

You're citation was the "because I said so" part of the summary and the "prove a negative" was the second part where you wanted a negative to be proven with respect to the Kennedy challenge even though you are the one who made the positive assertion first yet never backed it up.

Weak.

ROFL... So an eyewitness account is tantamount to "Because I said so..."

So naturally, IF one posted www.nytimes/kennedyauthorizedcoerciveinterrogations/vietnam... then that would be what? The end of the debate?

LOL... RIIIIiiiiiiiiiight....

All a link is, is someones opinion of some set of facts... you've my personal eyewitness account of my training, wherein during the CARTER administration we were trained to do exactly what these terrorists are being subjected to...

Now the simple fact is, that were a link provided to some third parties account of the same opinion, you'd cry about that account, the author, their history, their ideology, their personal associations... the same ad hom farce you're trotting out now... and why is that?

It's because ya have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that GW Bush is the only President to authorize such techniques... Well here's the bad news... it's been going on forever... it's going on RIGHT NOW; and it's always going to go on, because when it's needed, it's necessary and the bottom line is... it works.

Now cry all ya like... and should ya find a valid argument, post it and we'll consider that in between the dodging all the pig crap which will no doubt be falling as a result of their newfound means to fly...

fixed


nope. link still doesnt work
try again

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

LMFAO!

And s/he was lecturing me about how debate boards work!!

"I state this is a fact. Go prove I'm wrong." That's a pretty slick debate technique! LOL!

Let me try it:

I, Iriemon, state that PubliusInfinitum is a closet gay who pretends to be a tough guy ex-soldier so he can pull bullshit "facts" out of his ass without having any basis for them.

If you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

ROTFLMAO!!

Sure... Let's begin...

You've asserted that Publius Infinitum is a pathetic sexual deivient who lacks the personal character to control their base sexual instincts...

What is the nature of your expertise?

What are the specific facts which sustains the evidence supporting your stated conclusions?

Answer those questions and we'll continue to establish the evidence which sustains the looming refutation of your stated position.

Enoy...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted...

Well, there ya have it kids... She wants to participate; she feels she has the goods to make it happen... but when she finds herself lacking; when she is presented with immutable reason, she simply folds in these expositions of absurd foolishness...

Notice how she simply opted to avoid the argument, in some delusional pretense that it never happened... and runs to project an opinion which is based upon a reality to which only she is privy...



Not good...

 

[Article 15]

ROFLMNAO... So "I said so..." is a negative? Really? Seems more an affirmation...

Again, like I told the other idiot... if you've some evidence to contest my citation, bring it... otherwise you're looking at yet another default concession.

No, you jackass.

You're citation was the "because I said so" part of the summary and the "prove a negative" was the second part where you wanted a negative to be proven with respect to the Kennedy challenge even though you are the one who made the positive assertion first yet never backed it up.

Weak.

ROFL... So an eyewitness account is tantamount to "Because I said so..."

So naturally, IF one posted www.nytimes/kennedyauthorizedcoerciveinterrogations/vietnam... then that would be what? The end of the debate?

LOL... RIIIIiiiiiiiiiight....

All a link is, is someones opinion of some set of facts... you've my personal eyewitness account of my training, wherein during the CARTER administration we were trained to do exactly what these terrorists are being subjected to...

Now the simple fact is, that were a link provided to some third parties account of the same opinion, you'd cry about that account, the author, their history, their ideology, their personal associations... the same ad hom farce you're trotting out now... and why is that?

It's because ya have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that GW Bush is the only President to authorize such techniques... Well here's the bad news... it's been going on forever... it's going on RIGHT NOW; and it's always going to go on, because when it's needed, it's necessary and the bottom line is... it works.

Now cry all ya like... and should ya find a valid argument, post it and we'll consider that in between the dodging all the pig crap which will no doubt be falling as a result of their newfound means to fly...

If you posted credible evidence proving that other presidents authorized torture it would end a debate on whether or not Bush was the only president to do so, which BTW, I never claimed. To be frank, I think other administrations did so as well but I can't prove it or state is as fact. All that was asked was some shred of evidence that "Kennedy did it too" which you have failed to provide.

Your "personal experience" has no weight in this debate because you haven't been able prove such experience is in fact the truth and I suspect you never will.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No, you jackass.

You're citation was the "because I said so" part of the summary and the "prove a negative" was the second part where you wanted a negative to be proven with respect to the Kennedy challenge even though you are the one who made the positive assertion first yet never backed it up.

Weak.

ROFL... So an eyewitness account is tantamount to "Because I said so..."

So naturally, IF one posted www.nytimes/kennedyauthorizedcoerciveinterrogations/vietnam... then that would be what? The end of the debate?

LOL... RIIIIiiiiiiiiiight....

All a link is, is someones opinion of some set of facts... you've my personal eyewitness account of my training, wherein during the CARTER administration we were trained to do exactly what these terrorists are being subjected to...

Now the simple fact is, that were a link provided to some third parties account of the same opinion, you'd cry about that account, the author, their history, their ideology, their personal associations... the same ad hom farce you're trotting out now... and why is that?

It's because ya have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that GW Bush is the only President to authorize such techniques... Well here's the bad news... it's been going on forever... it's going on RIGHT NOW; and it's always going to go on, because when it's needed, it's necessary and the bottom line is... it works.

Now cry all ya like... and should ya find a valid argument, post it and we'll consider that in between the dodging all the pig crap which will no doubt be falling as a result of their newfound means to fly...

fixed


nope. link still doesnt work
try again

LOL... It's not an actual link Dive.. it's an example... The point being that they wouldn't accept that as evidence any more than they will accept my own testimony as an eyewitness to the facts listed and the opinions which I draw from those facts...

 

[DiveCon]

ROFL... So an eyewitness account is tantamount to "Because I said so..."

So naturally, IF one posted www.nytimes/kennedyauthorizedcoerciveinterrogations/vietnam... then that would be what? The end of the debate?

LOL... RIIIIiiiiiiiiiight....

All a link is, is someones opinion of some set of facts... you've my personal eyewitness account of my training, wherein during the CARTER administration we were trained to do exactly what these terrorists are being subjected to...

Now the simple fact is, that were a link provided to some third parties account of the same opinion, you'd cry about that account, the author, their history, their ideology, their personal associations... the same ad hom farce you're trotting out now... and why is that?

It's because ya have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that GW Bush is the only President to authorize such techniques... Well here's the bad news... it's been going on forever... it's going on RIGHT NOW; and it's always going to go on, because when it's needed, it's necessary and the bottom line is... it works.

Now cry all ya like... and should ya find a valid argument, post it and we'll consider that in between the dodging all the pig crap which will no doubt be falling as a result of their newfound means to fly...

fixed


nope. link still doesnt work
try again

LOL... It's not an actual link Dive.. it's an example... The point being that they wouldn't accept that as evidence any more than they will accept my own testimony as an eyewitness to the facts listed and the opinions which I draw from those facts...

well, most libs seem to need someone elses opinion to validate their own

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No, you jackass.

You're citation was the "because I said so" part of the summary and the "prove a negative" was the second part where you wanted a negative to be proven with respect to the Kennedy challenge even though you are the one who made the positive assertion first yet never backed it up.

Weak.

ROFL... So an eyewitness account is tantamount to "Because I said so..."

So naturally, IF one posted www.nytimes/kennedyauthorizedcoerciveinterrogations/vietnam... then that would be what? The end of the debate?

LOL... RIIIIiiiiiiiiiight....

All a link is, is someones opinion of some set of facts... you've my personal eyewitness account of my training, wherein during the CARTER administration we were trained to do exactly what these terrorists are being subjected to...

Now the simple fact is, that were a link provided to some third parties account of the same opinion, you'd cry about that account, the author, their history, their ideology, their personal associations... the same ad hom farce you're trotting out now... and why is that?

It's because ya have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that GW Bush is the only President to authorize such techniques... Well here's the bad news... it's been going on forever... it's going on RIGHT NOW; and it's always going to go on, because when it's needed, it's necessary and the bottom line is... it works.

Now cry all ya like... and should ya find a valid argument, post it and we'll consider that in between the dodging all the pig crap which will no doubt be falling as a result of their newfound means to fly...

If you posted credible evidence proving that other presidents authorized torture it would end a debate on whether or not Bush was the only president to do so, which BTW, I never claimed. To be frank, I think other administrations did so as well but I can't prove it or state is as fact. All that was asked was some shred of evidence that "Kennedy did it too" which you have failed to provide.

Your "personal experience" has no weight in this debate because you haven't been able prove such experience is in fact the truth and I suspect you never will.

Yeah I hear ya sis... the problem lies in what you deem credible... Its the same story...

First I've not stated anything which could lead anyone to conclude that I believe that jack kennedy approved of US troops torturing anyone.... I sure as hell have no evidenc to that effect...

I don't know of any evidence which could sustain the assertion that GW Bush approved of such... YET there are presently 5 or 6 threads on this board alone where dozens fo people are asserting just that...

All I did was to tell you that I was trained to implement these same techniques back in the late 70s... and the guys that trained US had been trained to do it BEFORE THAT... Now that stands as EVIDENCE... and whether it can be substantiated is IRRELEVANT... If you've some evidence that my good word lacks veracity... BRING IT... until you gather such evidence your entitled to your baseless opinion, but ya need to know that baseless opinion won't buy ya much...

Now if you can't connect those dots... I can't help ya with that.

Such techniques were not published back in those days, such information was quite secret and I wouldn't be discussing it NOW, if it were not for the fact that THIS ADMINISTRATION has released or is in the process of releasing details which we would have been courtmartialed for even discussing it in public, let alone PUBLISHING it...

You can claim that my testimony is inaccurate ALL damn DAY... but until you provide some evidence which indicates that it is NOT accurate... such assertions will not serve as argument.

Any questions?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

fixed


nope. link still doesnt work
try again

LOL... It's not an actual link Dive.. it's an example... The point being that they wouldn't accept that as evidence any more than they will accept my own testimony as an eyewitness to the facts listed and the opinions which I draw from those facts...

well, most libs seem to need someone elses opinion to validate their own

I've never met one that didn't...

 

[Article 15]

You can claim that my testimony is inaccurate ALL damn DAY... but until you provide some evidence which indicates that it is NOT accurate... such assertions will not serve as argument.

Same thing back at you, big guy. You can claim all the personal experience all you want but until to provide some evidence that proves it's accurate such claims will not serve as argument. The BIG difference though is that I'm asking you to prove a positive and you are asking a negative to be proven.

 

[Iriemon]

ROFL... So an eyewitness account is tantamount to "Because I said so..."

So naturally, IF one posted www.nytimes/kennedyauthorizedcoerciveinterrogations/vietnam... then that would be what? The end of the debate?

LOL... RIIIIiiiiiiiiiight....

All a link is, is someones opinion of some set of facts... you've my personal eyewitness account of my training, wherein during the CARTER administration we were trained to do exactly what these terrorists are being subjected to...

Now the simple fact is, that were a link provided to some third parties account of the same opinion, you'd cry about that account, the author, their history, their ideology, their personal associations... the same ad hom farce you're trotting out now... and why is that?

It's because ya have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that GW Bush is the only President to authorize such techniques... Well here's the bad news... it's been going on forever... it's going on RIGHT NOW; and it's always going to go on, because when it's needed, it's necessary and the bottom line is... it works.

Now cry all ya like... and should ya find a valid argument, post it and we'll consider that in between the dodging all the pig crap which will no doubt be falling as a result of their newfound means to fly...

fixed


nope. link still doesnt work
try again

LOL... It's not an actual link Dive.. it's an example... The point being that they wouldn't accept that as evidence any more than they will accept my own testimony as an eyewitness to the facts listed and the opinions which I draw from those facts...

YOU CITED A FAKE LINK ?

ROTFLMAO!

Oh jeez, you're killing me, I'm crying

I'm sorry I suggested you were drinking. It can't be that. It's got to be something stronger. The meds. It's got to be the meds.

 

[Iriemon]

ROFL... So an eyewitness account is tantamount to "Because I said so..."

So naturally, IF one posted www.nytimes/kennedyauthorizedcoerciveinterrogations/vietnam... then that would be what? The end of the debate?

LOL... RIIIIiiiiiiiiiight....

All a link is, is someones opinion of some set of facts... you've my personal eyewitness account of my training, wherein during the CARTER administration we were trained to do exactly what these terrorists are being subjected to...

Now the simple fact is, that were a link provided to some third parties account of the same opinion, you'd cry about that account, the author, their history, their ideology, their personal associations... the same ad hom farce you're trotting out now... and why is that?

It's because ya have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that GW Bush is the only President to authorize such techniques... Well here's the bad news... it's been going on forever... it's going on RIGHT NOW; and it's always going to go on, because when it's needed, it's necessary and the bottom line is... it works.

Now cry all ya like... and should ya find a valid argument, post it and we'll consider that in between the dodging all the pig crap which will no doubt be falling as a result of their newfound means to fly...

If you posted credible evidence proving that other presidents authorized torture it would end a debate on whether or not Bush was the only president to do so, which BTW, I never claimed. To be frank, I think other administrations did so as well but I can't prove it or state is as fact. All that was asked was some shred of evidence that "Kennedy did it too" which you have failed to provide.

Your "personal experience" has no weight in this debate because you haven't been able prove such experience is in fact the truth and I suspect you never will.

Yeah I hear ya sis... the problem lies in what you deem credible... Its the same story...

First I've not stated anything which could lead anyone to conclude that I believe that jack kennedy approved of US troops torturing anyone.... I sure as hell have no evidenc to that effect...

Course not.

JFK authorized waterboarding in his adminstration...

Cite please.

A citation?

Fine...

"I Publius Infinitum hereby state for the record that in the 1970s, only a few years after the cessation of hostility between the US government and the Republic of North Vietnam, that I was trained by the US Government in the implementation of Water-boarding and other coersive forms of interrogation; and as part and parcel of that training was informed that such techniques had been used by the United States government since before the memory of man ran to the contrary."

Now in case ya 'don't know' that was 30 years before GW Bush became President... During the time when Jimmy Carter... Leftist Saint, humanitarian, Former Lord of the Idiots... was President.

Does that help?

Now if you'd like to state emphatically and unambiguously that you know to a CERTAINTY that the US did not use ceorsive interrogation and that such was NOT authorized by Jack Kennedy... then by all means DO SO...

And we'll just helo ya to another dose of abject public humiliation...

So let 'er rip, sis...

 

[Iriemon]

Sure... Let's begin...

You've asserted that Publius Infinitum is a pathetic sexual deivient who lacks the personal character to control their base sexual instincts...

What is the nature of your expertise?

What are the specific facts which sustains the evidence supporting your stated conclusions?

Answer those questions and we'll continue to establish the evidence which sustains the looming refutation of your stated position.

Enoy...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted...

Well, there ya have it kids... She wants to participate; she feels she has the goods to make it happen... but when she finds herself lacking; when she is presented with immutable reason, she simply folds in these expositions of absurd foolishness...

Notice how she simply opted to avoid the argument, in some delusional pretense that it never happened... and runs to project an opinion which is based upon a reality to which only she is privy...



Not good...

LMAO, I don't even know where to begin with this one. I want to participate in what? I feel I have the goods to make what happen? I find myself lacking what? What immutable reason was I presented with? What expositions of absurd foolishness? I avoided what arguent? In the pretence that what never happened? And hwat opinion to which only she is privy?

Enquiring (and bored) minds want to know.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You can claim that my testimony is inaccurate ALL damn DAY... but until you provide some evidence which indicates that it is NOT accurate... such assertions will not serve as argument.

Same thing back at you, big guy. You can claim all the personal experience all you want but until to provide some evidence that proves it's accurate such claims will not serve as argument. The BIG difference though is that I'm asking you to prove a positive and you are asking a negative to be proven.

ROFL...

Sis I am not asking you to prove anything... I don't give a red rats ass what you think...

I am TELLING you how it is... and whether you believe it, accept it, reject it... is irrelevant.

There can be no doubt that Kennedy had the same techniques available to him and that where he felt such was necessary he would not have hesitated to implement them...

And why is that?

BECAUSE THEY ARE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TECHNIQUES TO USE ON THOSE DETERMINED TO BE A THREAT TO US NATIONAL SECURITY...

Ya see sis... it's a big bad world out there and grown ups with real jobs don't get all that misty over the rights of those who are trying to kill them... They also aren't all that concerned with the feminized perspective of those who use the word "torture" to define what they feel they're going through, when they read the words of their opposition on message boards in which they freely participate... THEN OPENLY DELCARE THAT TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!

Contrary to popular belief I am not trying to prove that kennedy did anything... I'm just telling that he did whatever he felt like he had to do to get the job done and stressing the enemy is pretty much a big part of the job of fightin' a war.

Now if you believe that a guy that orders men to battle, where large, WHITE HOT, RAZOR SHARP CHUNKS OF STEEL ARE GOING TO TEAR MEN TO BITS... will not order men to stress a prisoner to induce them to tell his people what they NEED to know... then you don't really have a grasp on the reality of that situation.

And that's not something I can help ya with...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

fixed


nope. link still doesnt work
try again

LOL... It's not an actual link Dive.. it's an example... The point being that they wouldn't accept that as evidence any more than they will accept my own testimony as an eyewitness to the facts listed and the opinions which I draw from those facts...

YOU CITED A FAKE LINK ?

Nope...

But I have concluded that you're little more than a general nuisance... a common troll with little to offer the board and to slap your ass on perm-ignore...

CYA...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh... dat MUCH bedda... Nice and quiet...

 

[Article 15]

You can claim that my testimony is inaccurate ALL damn DAY... but until you provide some evidence which indicates that it is NOT accurate... such assertions will not serve as argument.

Same thing back at you, big guy. You can claim all the personal experience all you want but until to provide some evidence that proves it's accurate such claims will not serve as argument. The BIG difference though is that I'm asking you to prove a positive and you are asking a negative to be proven.

ROFL...

Sis I am not asking you to prove anything... I don't give a red rats ass what you think...

I am TELLING you how it is... and whether you believe it, accept it, reject it... is irrelevant.

There can be no doubt that Kennedy had the same techniques available to him and that where he felt such was necessary he would not have hesitated to implement them...

And why is that?

BECAUSE THEY ARE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TECHNIQUES TO USE ON THOSE DETERMINED TO BE A THREAT TO US NATIONAL SECURITY...

Ya see sis... it's a big bad world out there and grown ups with real jobs don't get all that misty over the rights of those who are trying to kill them... They also aren't all that concerned with the feminized perspective of those who use the word "torture" to define what they feel they're going through, when they read the words of their opposition on message boards in which they freely participate... THEN OPENLY DELCARE THAT TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!

Contrary to popular belief I am not trying to prove that kennedy did anything... I'm just telling that he did whatever he felt like he had to do to get the job done and stressing the enemy is pretty much a big part of the job of fightin' a war.

Now if you believe that a guy that orders men to battle, where large, WHITE HOT, RAZOR SHARP CHUNKS OF STEEL ARE GOING TO TEAR MEN TO BITS... will not order men to stress a prisoner to induce them to tell his people what they NEED to know... then you don't really have a grasp on the reality of that situation.

And that's not something I can help ya with...

Another opinionated rant that only projects your own worldview and nothing more.

Oh... dat MUCH bedda... Nice and quiet...

It's pretty obvious that you are desperate and shaken when you resort to this kind of nonsense 3 and 6 minutes after your posts.

 

[Iriemon]

LOL... It's not an actual link Dive.. it's an example... The point being that they wouldn't accept that as evidence any more than they will accept my own testimony as an eyewitness to the facts listed and the opinions which I draw from those facts...

YOU CITED A FAKE LINK ?

Nope...

But I have concluded that you're little more than a general nuisance... a common troll with little to offer the board and to slap your ass on perm-ignore...

CYA...

Oh snap!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Same thing back at you, big guy. You can claim all the personal experience all you want but until to provide some evidence that proves it's accurate such claims will not serve as argument. The BIG difference though is that I'm asking you to prove a positive and you are asking a negative to be proven.

ROFL...

Sis I am not asking you to prove anything... I don't give a red rats ass what you think...

I am TELLING you how it is... and whether you believe it, accept it, reject it... is irrelevant.

There can be no doubt that Kennedy had the same techniques available to him and that where he felt such was necessary he would not have hesitated to implement them...

And why is that?

BECAUSE THEY ARE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TECHNIQUES TO USE ON THOSE DETERMINED TO BE A THREAT TO US NATIONAL SECURITY...

Ya see sis... it's a big bad world out there and grown ups with real jobs don't get all that misty over the rights of those who are trying to kill them... They also aren't all that concerned with the feminized perspective of those who use the word "torture" to define what they feel they're going through, when they read the words of their opposition on message boards in which they freely participate... THEN OPENLY DELCARE THAT TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!

Contrary to popular belief I am not trying to prove that kennedy did anything... I'm just telling that he did whatever he felt like he had to do to get the job done and stressing the enemy is pretty much a big part of the job of fightin' a war.

Now if you believe that a guy that orders men to battle, where large, WHITE HOT, RAZOR SHARP CHUNKS OF STEEL ARE GOING TO TEAR MEN TO BITS... will not order men to stress a prisoner to induce them to tell his people what they NEED to know... then you don't really have a grasp on the reality of that situation.

And that's not something I can help ya with...

Another opinionated rant that only projects your own worldview and nothing more.

ROFL... My world view is the only world view I give a crap about... you don't have to agree with it... you just have to know that you've no means to contest it.

Oh... dat MUCH bedda... Nice and quiet...

It's pretty obvious that you are desperate and shaken when you resort to this kind of nonsense 3 and 6 minutes after your posts.

LOL... do whuh?

My 'Complete Idiocy' decoder is in the shop... so you'll have to post that one in the clear, if ya just need a response.

 

[Article 15]

ROFL...

Sis I am not asking you to prove anything... I don't give a red rats ass what you think...

I am TELLING you how it is... and whether you believe it, accept it, reject it... is irrelevant.

There can be no doubt that Kennedy had the same techniques available to him and that where he felt such was necessary he would not have hesitated to implement them...

And why is that?

BECAUSE THEY ARE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TECHNIQUES TO USE ON THOSE DETERMINED TO BE A THREAT TO US NATIONAL SECURITY...

Ya see sis... it's a big bad world out there and grown ups with real jobs don't get all that misty over the rights of those who are trying to kill them... They also aren't all that concerned with the feminized perspective of those who use the word "torture" to define what they feel they're going through, when they read the words of their opposition on message boards in which they freely participate... THEN OPENLY DELCARE THAT TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!

Contrary to popular belief I am not trying to prove that kennedy did anything... I'm just telling that he did whatever he felt like he had to do to get the job done and stressing the enemy is pretty much a big part of the job of fightin' a war.

Now if you believe that a guy that orders men to battle, where large, WHITE HOT, RAZOR SHARP CHUNKS OF STEEL ARE GOING TO TEAR MEN TO BITS... will not order men to stress a prisoner to induce them to tell his people what they NEED to know... then you don't really have a grasp on the reality of that situation.

And that's not something I can help ya with...

Another opinionated rant that only projects your own worldview and nothing more.

ROFL... My world view is the only world view I give a crap about... you don't have to agree with it... you just have to know that you've no means to contest it.

Your problem is that you think your world view is the be all end all truth so no matter what I say you are going to take it as incorrect, not valid, a concession of defeat, or whatever else blusters off of your keyboard. There is no "contesting" your view because you don't want to hear it, it's like you post while looking at yourself in a mirror ... this is all an exercise in mental masturbation to you ... that has been perfectly clear since the day you joined this board. So please, don't confuse my choice not to get into full head on debate with you as the "inability to contest" your views, I just see it as a complete waste of my time because you live in a world of your own ... a world where fact and opinion are one and the same as long as it comes off of your own fingertips. I instead, prefer to sit back and poke or pot shot at various moronic statements you make when it tickles my fancy because it's ammusing to see just how ridiculous you will get when someone points out that you are talking out of your ass.

But just so we are clear:

On this issue, like nearly every other, we differ. I am against state sanctioned torturing of people in an effort to gain intelligence, I include waterboarding within that definition. I believe waterboarding is torture because it is denying someone oxygen which in my view fits the mock execution definition of torture. We have prosecuted and convicted people for waterboarding in the past. I believe this practice goes directly against what we as a nation stand for and plays into our enemies hands.

Am I right? I think so. You think you're opinions are right also. The difference between us is that I realize that my view is an opinion and you confuse your opinions with fact.