Goodbye

Bill said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:08:46 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's like Harry Reid. Cheney criticizes his /positions/ without a single
personal attack,

Quoted message said:

LOL you're totally deluded. What are your sources of information?

Give Cheney a mirror and he could argue with himself all day.

The mirror would crack (shatter?), IMO.

Quoted message said:

He's the reason I hope 'Weed' stays healthy.

OTOH, if the Head [censored]'s ticker gave out from the stress, we'd have
Pelosi 'til January 2009. That would be a huge improvement over the
current situation.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

"Promoting Torture". I'd like to know when Mark /promoted/ torture.

IIRC Mark wrote a post condoning the use of waterboarding prisoners
suspected of links to terrorism. Since JT and many others include
waterboarding as a form of torture, the conclusion is that Mark
condoned torture. Whether that is "promoting" torture can become a
rehash of the definition of "is."

[censored]. Words have meaning. Words matter. Promotion is not the same as
selective approval or support given a certain set of circumstances. (And
I'll bet you lunch that Mark did not START A DISCUSSION about the matter,
but rather had the gall to express his /opinion/ in a discussion. Again,
that's apparently not allowable these days (to wit, global warming).)

Quoted message said:

Of course the really stupid thing is that torture does not result in
gaining reliable information. This has been shown over and over and
over again. It's only in fantasy worlds like "24" where torture is
effective. Mainly torture is an excuse for people to exercise their
sadistic impulses and do things with impunity that would get them
tossed in jail in the civilian world.

Agree about torture. However, the "Shiek" gave up volumes of information
that saved countless lives after about 90 seconds of (unconfirmed)
water-boarding. I doubt the US would subject its own personnel to "torture"
as a routine part of their training. Mark did NOT "promote torture" and to
say he did is a blatant lie worthy of Rosie.

Quoted message said:

And as frosting on the cake, we're even torturing people who have no
connection to terrorism but who were "turned in" by people with a
revenge agenda for one reason or another (clan squabbles and the
like).

"We're" "torturing" people? Proof?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's exactly like the helm*t threads, where the AHZs accuse
pro-lidders of being for MHLs even though they've expressly stated
opposition to them.

Quoted message said:

Not exactly. The latter is just a straw man. In Mark's case, if I
recall his posts correctly, he went on record supporting the use of
waterboarding. (It's possible that I am not recalling his posts
correctly, however).

It probably evolved from a hypothetical (ISTR something like that) -- say
you've got a terrorist in custody who absolutely knows where a nuclear bomb
in NYC or LA or DC or Chicago is located and how to disarm it before it goes
off in 45 minutes, what do you do? Save millions of lives or...??? Seems
to me that's how that particular topic began....but I too could be mistaken.

One thing is for sure: he did not "promote torture".

Words matter. Words have meaning.

Bill S.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:23:48 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I _could_ get aggravated, but I don't anymore. Why? Because it doesn't
change anything, and it just gets you aggravated and wastes your time.

Maybe. And the current decline in polls for the right-wing may say
things are going to work out. But not getting aggravated is also the
way dictatorships creep in. It's suck if we didn't get aggravated
enough and our democracy is in the toilet in 15 years.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Tim McNamara said:

In Mark's case, if I
recall his posts correctly, he went on record supporting the use of
waterboarding. (It's possible that I am not recalling his posts
correctly, however).

He did support waterboarding of prisoners to get information to
prevent more probelms and doesn't dispute that.

He disputes that waterboarding prisoners is in fact torture due to
particular interpretation of the Geneva conventions and also the fact
that some members of the US military have undergone waterboarding as
training to resist interrogation.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:46:33 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

What you're not understanding is that bias is in the eye of the
beholder. If your personal bent is to the right, the media looks like
it's skewed to the left. If your personal bent is to the left, it
looks like the media is skewed to the right.

And little things like 82% of the WH press corps voting Democrat is
just...imaginary.

Here's the thing. You cannot even conceive of someone being
even-handed, or at least attempting to be (no one's perfect), so you
assume if someone votes one way they naturally bring that bias to
their work. But that's simply not true.

More importantly, if we look at really progressive versus conservative
views, the national press corp is part of the country's economic
elite. They attend the same schools and mingle in the same social
circles as the country's business and poltiical leadership. That's why
you don't see balanced coverage of real "left" issues as much, such as
coverage of labor issues. That's why when you look at the leading
voices on talking heads shows and newspaper editorial boards you see a
lot of the people who support the economic and political status quo in
this country.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:03:16 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[censored]. Words have meaning. Words matter. Promotion is not the same as
selective approval or support given a certain set of circumstances.

Let's end this here. He promoted waterboarding. He said that in some
situations waterboarding would be a good idea. He did not hide that.

He did claim that waterboarding is not torture and that's the center
of his dispute with me on that.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:03:16 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

say
you've got a terrorist in custody who absolutely knows where a nuclear bomb
in NYC or LA or DC or Chicago is located and how to disarm it before it goes
off in 45 minutes, what do you do?

I see you do watch "24" a lot I see -- great source of info on the
word, huh. I hate to break it to you, but reality simply does not
happen this way.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Apr 26, 7:53 am, Scott Gordo <[email hidden]> wrote:
---snip---

it has succumbed to the 5 bungholes who

Quoted message said:

drown everyone else out. AND the seemingly limitless number of people
who can't see past the bait.

---/snip---

Thus, making it a virtual carbon copy of RBT.

Sad to see you go, Mark. Hell, I remember when Hab Cycles was the
home of the $695 ti bike...inflation's a [censored] ;-)

SYJ

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:23:48 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I _could_ get aggravated, but I don't anymore. Why? Because it doesn't
change anything, and it just gets you aggravated and wastes your time.

Maybe. And the current decline in polls for the right-wing may say
things are going to work out. But not getting aggravated is also the
way dictatorships creep in. It's suck if we didn't get aggravated
enough and our democracy is in the toilet in 15 years.

FYI, the nastiest dictators of all times were grass-roots heros put in to
power by aggravated people. Stalin was very left wing. [censored] was right.
By whom would you prefer to be executed? Actually, to be fair, it was Lenin
and not Stalin who was put in power by aggravated people, but Stalin was
just one step removed. And let's not forget the good dictators like Peter
the Great, arguably Cromwell, the aggravated French people loved Napoleon. I
think the closest we ever got to a dictator in this country was FDR who was
hardly right-wing (even though he put the Japanese in detention camps just
because they were Japanese). Some wanted to make George Washington king, but
he declined.

Really, though, the chances of there being a dictator in the U.S. is zero,
but it does make for wonderful, indulgent rhetoric that proves no point. --
Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie said:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:23:48 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I _could_ get aggravated, but I don't anymore. Why? Because it doesn't
change anything, and it just gets you aggravated and wastes your time.

Maybe. And the current decline in polls for the right-wing may say
things are going to work out. But not getting aggravated is also the
way dictatorships creep in. It's suck if we didn't get aggravated
enough and our democracy is in the toilet in 15 years.

FYI, the nastiest dictators of all times were grass-roots heros put in to
power by aggravated people. Stalin was very left wing. [censored] was right.
By whom would you prefer to be executed?

It's pretty much the same to me if I'm going to die, but your question
is not so relevant to the US now.

In the US at least, the greater present-day threat to the democracy is
from the right, especially the current administration. By far. Look
at attacks on habeas corpus and the rights to fair trials. Look at
assertions by the US Attorney General (!!!!).

So that's what I'm concerned with. We dont' have a powerful left-wing
movement in the US with the power to jail people indefinitely or
wiretap people w/o a court order.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Jay Beattie said:

FYI, the nastiest dictators of all times were grass-roots heros put
in to power by aggravated people. Stalin was very left wing. [censored]
was right. By whom would you prefer to be executed? Actually, to be
fair, it was Lenin and not Stalin who was put in power by aggravated
people, but Stalin was just one step removed. And let's not forget
the good dictators like Peter the Great, arguably Cromwell, the
aggravated French people loved Napoleon. I think the closest we ever
got to a dictator in this country was FDR who was hardly right-wing
(even though he put the Japanese in detention camps just because they
were Japanese). Some wanted to make George Washington king, but he
declined.
Really, though, the chances of there being a dictator in the U.S. is
zero, but it does make for wonderful, indulgent rhetoric that proves
no point. -- Jay Beattie.

Stop being reasonable, Jay. TYVM

Doug Taylor said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:43:27 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was always fascinated how someone who talked such sense about
bikes, could seem so wacko about politics. Which was kind of fun and
thought provoking.

Is everyone who disagrees with you or has a different viewpoint from yours
"wacko"?

Just wondering.

I doubt it. He was probably just checking a few polls
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
and figured that if 60% +/- of the population disapproves of G.W. Bush
generally, then people like you and Hickey, who drink the cool aid by
the gallon, are so far over the right edge of the bell curve as to
qualify as bone fide "wackos."

Well,
After watching you guys I should add some unverified information.
Hillary (supposedly) announced that if she were President she would make
Bill (the ex...everything???) the Goodwill Ambassador for the United States.
Her ratings went up to 70% on that note. Keep him out of the White house
and he can get all the goodwill he can handle from the women overseas.
Obama who???

Bush 1. Waco, Texas????
Blows Desert Storm by not finishing it.
Clinton. Too horny, but a fairly mellow 8 years.
Bush 2. Desert Storm 2, still blowing it after longer than WWII.

Have fun debating everything.
This was supposed to be Goodbye to Mark.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

Also sadly, Mark's leaving might be interepreted as a mass plonking of
the #2 variety above. Most Americans, and most posters to these
Usenet groups, have pretty thoroughly rejected his previous arguments
- especially Saddam's WMDs, the value of the war, the nobility of the
Neo-Con administration, etc. There's a chance that he can't handle
the fact that he has no political leg to stand on.

Can't think of anyone else who will disagree with this besides Bill
Sornson.

Bill, you're gonna be mighty lonely without Mark when/if future on
topic threads turn political. But then again, if all the right wing
trolls sneak back into their caves, then maybe the threads will stay
on topic.

Ain't THAT a tree hugging wimpy hippy idea?

A Muzi said:

Headline: "Bush awoke this morning"
Subhead: "Precious oxygen wasted; Armageddon imminent"

O2 wasted seems the most appropriate for that upright ape.

Quoted message said:

On what planet are your morning papers printed?
Jeez I've been reading about impending doom in every area of life in
every section of the papers (save WSJ) for six years - which hasn't
happened AFAIK. Do keep me updated though.

It won't until some idiot in Korea or Iran (pick a country) gets nukes
and starts something he can't handle, then we get into it, then China,
etc...

Could be a long incubating but contagious disease that suddenly hits the
whole world, courtesy of business travelers going to work sick, or
anything like a flu pandemic like 1918.

Still waiting.
Bill Baka

Jay Beattie said:

Really, though, the chances of there being a dictator in the U.S. is zero,
but it does make for wonderful, indulgent rhetoric that proves no point. --

I completely disagree. It's not going to happen in the next year or
so, but if we had the sort of movement on civil liberties we had in,
say 2001 to 2005 over the course of ten or 15 years, and then a
freakish event like another major terrorist attack on our soil, it's
possible. Not likely, but certainly possible.

And we have mainsteam politicians like Newt Gingrich calling for
increasing limitations on free speech and the head of the US Justice
department asserting that the nature of the current war gives the
president the power to take extra-legal control of any one he
determines to be a sufficient threat.

Complancency on this issue is not good. You can think it's unlikely
or even remote, but you should be aware of it and not think it's
impossible.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Ozark Bicycle said:

Bill said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:08:46 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> It's like Harry Reid. Cheney criticizes his /positions/ without a single
> personal attack,
LOL you're totally deluded. What are your sources of information?

Give Cheney a mirror and he could argue with himself all day.

The mirror would crack (shatter?), IMO.

Quoted message said:

He's the reason I hope 'Weed' stays healthy.

OTOH, if the Head [censored]'s ticker gave out from the stress, we'd have
Pelosi 'til January 2009. That would be a huge improvement over the
current situation.

Now there's an opinion I can't even begin to argue with. I think she
might take 2008 and have Hillary as the V.P.
That could get really interesting.
Bill Baka

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:23:48 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I _could_ get aggravated, but I don't anymore. Why? Because it doesn't
change anything, and it just gets you aggravated and wastes your time.

Maybe. And the current decline in polls for the right-wing may say
things are going to work out. But not getting aggravated is also the
way dictatorships creep in. It's suck if we didn't get aggravated
enough and our democracy is in the toilet in 15 years.

Look on the bright side. We KNOW we are going to have a Dem landslide in
2008, and the Republicans are going to fall off the chart for
(4-8-10-12) years.
Bill Baka

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:09:29 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Please provide an example of that, Frank. I can't recall a /single time/
when Mark started political content in an otherwise on topic (or even
off-topic) thread. And I certainly can't remember him ever introducing a
political topic a la JB(@SA.O).

Maybe you're right. Certainly in the recent thread, YOU started
political content, I responded and then Mark came after me. I then I
went after him.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill said:

Look on the bright side. We KNOW we are going to have a Dem landslide in
2008, and the Republicans are going to fall off the chart for
(4-8-10-12) years.
Bill Baka

You think so? the Democrats have consistently shown their stupidity in
nominating ideological candidates that are unelectable. Look at the
last election -Bushy was the weakest re-election candidate the Rep's
had in many decades, with approval ratings in the dumper, and he still
squeaked it out because the Dumbacrats nominated John Kerry, a
Northern white ultra-liberal. That tells you how weak Kerry was. You
even hear a lot of those idiots still talking about Al Bore. They need
to get a freakin clue if they want to win an election.

Bill said:

Bush 1. Waco, Texas????

Clinton /Reno on that one
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971