Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

Nice shot . . . even the guy in back is smiling.

When I saw Nancy, I thought this was about stem cell research but I guess Obama already handled that matter a few months ago.

 

[besada]

Yeah you're right, the government should just declassify every file they have on everything and host it on whitehouse.gov

These files have been ordered to be released by the courts under the Freedom of Information Act.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect the administration to follow the law, rather than creating a new law so they can disregard it.

 

[Jonm1010]

I think it's amazing that people have bought the argument that there's nowhere safe in the US to hold them.

Here's a change up of that line of thinking people:

If our current prisons are incapable of holding these terrorists then are they capable of holding our serial killers, rapists, murderers, and tax evaders? Sounds like the government is tipping us off that our entire prison system is at risk. Frankly, I'd be more worried about the hundreds of thousands of criminals that can so easily escape over a handful of terrorists.

Call your representatives, if our prisons can not handle these detainees demand that they be able to because that means all the other people held there are also completely capable of getting out. They can't have it both ways, either our prisons can safely hold people or they can not, they can't be safe enough to hold American prisoners but not safe enough to hold foreign prisoners.

Exactly, and as Fred Kaplan points out, there are already 355 terrorists in American prisons!

 

[speculawyer]

i dont know how i feel about this... on one hand, i want this shit to come out, on the other hand, pictures of soliders sodomizing young boys and other prisoners is fucked up shit, and no one can truly tell what the repercussions in the Arab world may be.

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that it is fine to keep them secret. I rationalize it using evidence rules that say you are allowed to show something but only enough to get the point across and not so much that it becomes prejudicial. The original photos got the point across . . . releasing more now doesn't really give us new information, it just enrages emotions.


But here is a thought . . . conservatives are always staunch against any such release of photos since the effect it will have on the Arab street. Well . . . then why can't they see that that is pretty much the same reason we should not torture? Of course they'll say because it gets information . . . but enough info to rationalize the damage it does to our reputation? Is the delta of information received over traditional methods worth the damage to our nation? I just don't see that as a winning argument. Of course we never should have even been having this argument since torture is illegal. Period.

 

[APF]

I don't think anyone argues we should be waterboarding people in public though.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I think if Gore became President and used torture, liberals would be defending it and conservatives would be condemning it.

This is just party vs. party bullshit, and that's a shame because human beings are being tortured as a result.

 

[gcubed]

I think if Gore became President and used torture, liberals would be defending it and conservatives would be condemning it.

This is just party vs. party bullshit, and that's a shame because human beings are being tortured as a result.

yeah i also dont think that Gore would have opened a torture prison and flaunted it out in the public. Thats more of my beef then the actual torture itself.

 

[Jonm1010]

I think if Gore became President and used torture, liberals would be defending it and conservatives would be condemning it.

This is just party vs. party bullshit, and that's a shame because human beings are being tortured as a result.

Conservatives might condemn it but liberals arent gonna support it. Party-line democrats probably would but thats two different things.

 

[besada]

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that it is fine to keep them secret.

So you're okay with the administration substituting its rules for those of the courts? Because I seem to remember you having a problem with that during the last administration.

If no court had ever ruled on the release, then it would be fine if the Obama administration made their decision. But the court has ordered the release of the photos, and the administration, instead of complying with a court order, is attempting to change the law to avoid having to comply.

That doesn't bother you at all?

 

[speculawyer]

I think if Gore became President and used torture, liberals would be defending it and conservatives would be condemning it.

This is just party vs. party bullshit, and that's a shame because human beings are being tortured as a result.

I think you massively underestimate or do not understand the actual philosophical differences in the parties. The right is more authoritarian and the left is more for individual civil rights.

 

[APF]

During whose Administration did rendition start?

Gore wasn't exactly soft on terrorists when he was VP. His loss to Bush + his non-political work and the Iraq war changed his perspective or at least his rhetoric. I doubt if President he would have been making the same arguments as the Gore we know today.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I think you massively underestimate or do not understand the actual philosophical differences in the parties. The right is more authoritarian and the left is more for individual civil rights.

Yeah, but I kind of feel that, for a lot of people, love of a leader is dominant over actual ideology.

Just look at the conservatives who praised Bush for his bailout and now condemn Obama for his stimulus package. You could argue that this is something only conservatives would do, but I'm not so sure.

 

[speculawyer]

So you're okay with the administration substituting its rules for those of the courts? Because I seem to remember you having a problem with that during the last administration.

If no court had ever ruled on the release, then it would be fine if the Obama administration made their decision. But the court has ordered the release of the photos, and the administration, instead of complying with a court order, is attempting to change the law to avoid having to comply.

That doesn't bother you at all?

I do get an unpleasant feeling of being hypocritical on this but I really do think it is for the greater good. And have the legal arguments really been exhausted? If this were to hit the supreme court, I'm pretty certain the Scalia & Thomas block would rule these photos as state secrets. As a lawyer, you are allowed to advance positions that are within a reasonable change of the law.

And if these were the first such photos, I'd say release them. But these are cumulative and displaced far in time such that an emotion reaction by the Arab street would be misplaced since things have changed. And finally, I think all the people involved in the photos should be prosecuted and when they go to court, the individual photos used as evidence should be made public. This makes the trial more public and photo will be released in context with a criminal trial.

 

[speculawyer]

Yeah, but I kind of feel that, for a lot of people, love of a leader is dominant over actual ideology.

Just look at the conservatives who praised Bush for his bailout and now condemn Obama for his stimulus package. You could argue that this is something only conservatives would do, but I'm not so sure.

I do agree with your point that a lot of people to adopt positions just because their leader or their party espouses them. And I do think both sides do it.

However, due to their authoritarian nature, I would say the conservative side does it much more. And that is one of the reasons why they are often better at winning elections . . . their followers 'fall in line' and toe the party line. Organizing the left is like herding cats. Or as Will Rodgers put it, "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."

 

[scorcho]

I think if Gore became President and used torture, liberals would be defending it and conservatives would be condemning it.

This is just party vs. party bullshit, and that's a shame because human beings are being tortured as a result.

Not really, but thanks for trying! For some reason, I'm not sure why, I'd be ecstatic if Republicans supported platforms like universal health care, gay marriage, etc.

 

[besada]

I do get an unpleasant feeling of being hypocritical on this but I really do think it is for the greater good. And have the legal arguments really been exhausted? If this were to hit the supreme court, I'm pretty certain the Scalia & Thomas block would rule these photos as state secrets. As a lawyer, you are allowed to advance positions that are within a reasonable change of the law.

If their solution was to fight it at the SC level (which is their only legal option at this point, as all the lower courts have ruled against them), then fine. But that's not what they're doing. They're talking about creating a one-off law to allow them to ignore multiple court orders. This is a six-year court battle in which the executive branch has lost at every turn. And keep in mind, it was the last administration that started this court fight by refusing to abide by the rules of the FOIA.

Their unwillingness to actually follow the law and appeal the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals's ruling suggests to me that they don't have much faith that yet another appeal is going to work. And really, if you're counting on Scalia and Thomas to get what you want, have you considered you might be on the wrong side of the issue?

It would be great if we didn't need to release these photos. It would be even better if we didn't have them, because we hadn't decided to torture prisoners in our care. But since they exist, and they've been requested, and the courts have ruled, I don't really accept that the administration gets to make up its own rules. An that's before you consider that the administration in question ran on a promise of transparency and explicitly said they would follow the court order.

The courts have already ruled on the "inflaming the street" defense and found it to be a non-starter in light of the FOIA. The Government has already tried and failed with this defense. The question is whether you think the administration has the right to ignore the courts or not?

 

[APF]

It would be great if we didn't need to release these photos. It would be even better if we didn't have them, because we hadn't decided to torture prisoners in our care.

Which of those memos allowed random soldiers to rape prisoners?

 

[speculawyer]

If their solution was to fight it at the SC level (which is their only legal option at this point, as all the lower courts have ruled against them), then fine. But that's not what they're doing. They're talking about creating a one-off law to allow them to ignore multiple court orders. This is a six-year court battle in which the executive branch has lost at every turn. And keep in mind, it was the last administration that started this court fight by refusing to abide by the rules of the FOIA.

Their unwillingness to actually follow the law and appeal the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals's ruling suggests to me that they don't have much faith that yet another appeal is going to work.

Yeah, that is kinda bullshit. I'd especially be afraid that such a law would be too broad and have unintended consequences.

And really, if you're counting on Scalia and Thomas to get what you want, have you considered you might be on the wrong side of the issue?

:lol Yeah, that does worry me. Again, I'd really want any such decision to be VERY narrow.

The courts have already ruled on the "inflaming the street" defense and found it to be a non-starter in light of the FOIA. The Government has already tried and failed with this defense. The question is whether you think the administration has the right to ignore the courts or not?

Well, the facts are bit different now and they've got more evidence. These photos are now quite old and will give an inaccurate view of current conditions. And they can now point to statistical increases in violence that occurred after the original batch of photos were released.

I guess what I'm looking for is some really narrow decision or law that will keep these photos confidential for a limited period of time (not in perpetuity). They definitely must be released eventually but perhaps not until many years down the road. They've got to be able to figure out a way of doing this.

 

[besada]

Which of those memos allowed random soldiers to rape prisoners?

I didn't reference any memos, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm talking about the people at Abu Ghraib at both the enlisted and officer level who decided it was appropriate to torture prisoners in our care. You seem to want to have a different discussion than the one I'm having.

Well, the facts are bit different now and they've got more evidence.

The latest ruling is from late last year and the government has advanced no argument that hasn't already been rejected by the courts. Obama's reasoning is fear of endangering the soldiers which was explicitly rejected by the U.S. 2nd District Court of Appeals.

 

[APF]

I didn't reference any memos, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm talking about the people at Abu Ghraib at both the enlisted and officer level who decided it was appropriate to torture prisoners in our care.

When you say "we" it usually means "the United States of America," implying a decision made or supported by the government / Executive, not "some people." Since that wasn't the case, I was asking for a clarification, which you provided.


In other news:

Purported bin Laden tape slams U.S. role in Pakistan

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden purportedly issued another statement Wednesday, saying U.S. policy in Pakistan has generated "new seeds of hatred and revenge against America."

Zeroing in on the conflict in Pakistan's Swat Valley, where Pakistan's troops are taking on Taliban militants, the message asserts that President Obama is proving that he is "walking the same road of his predecessors to build enmity against Muslims and increasing the number of fighters, and establishing more lasting wars."

Al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language TV network that aired the message, said the statement was "a voice recording by bin Laden," and a CNN analysis said the voice does indeed sound like the leader of the terrorist network that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

The remarks -- which would be bin Laden's first assessment of Obama's policy -- were believed to have been recorded several weeks ago at the start of a mass civilian exodus because of fighting in northwestern Pakistan.

The speaker cites strikes, destruction and Obama's "order" to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari "to prevent the people of Swat from implementing sharia law."

"All this led to the displacement of about a million Muslim elders, women and children from their villages and homes. They became refugees in tents after they were honored in their own homes," the message says.

"This basically means that Obama and his administration put new seeds of hatred and revenge against America. The number of these seeds is the same as the number of those victims and refugees in Swat and the tribal area in northern and southern Waziristan."

And, the message says, "the American people need to prepare to only gain what those seeds bring up."

The speaker also says Zardari and Pakistan's military chief, Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, continue to divert the army's main role from protecting the nation to fighting Islam and its followers. He says the war is also hurting Pakistan's economy, endangering the country's religion and security, and "fulfilling an American, Jewish and Indian plot."

"Most of the Pakistani people reject this unjust war. Zardari did this in response to the ones paying him in the White House -- not 10 percent but multiple folds of that," the message says.

The message points to India's aspirations, saying it is "easy for India to subject the disassembled territories of Pakistan, one after another, for its own benefit, like the case of eastern Pakistan before, or even worse."

"This way, America eases its worry towards Pakistan's nuclear weapons," the message says.

[...]

Full article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/06/03/bin.laden.message/index.html

 

[besada]

When you say "we" it usually means "the United States of America," implying a decision made or supported by the government / Executive, not "some people." Since that wasn't the case, I was asking for a clarification, which you provided.

I meant "we" in the sense of the Armed Forces of the United States, for which we're all responsible. Neither you nor I have any idea how culpable anyone higher than the officers already disciplined might be, because the "investigation" into the torture at Abu Ghraib was headed by the very group responisble for the actions.

That said, it probably didn't help the situation that the existing administration was making arguments that these prisoners were not protected by the Geneva Conventions, and that torture techniques were allowable under extreme circumstances.

I don't think Cheney wrote a memo asking Lyndie England to smile and point for the camera, if that's what you're getting at.

 

[APF]

I think an individual is responsible for his or her own actions, and that you or I are not responsible for the actions of either people in the military or the military at-large.

 

[besada]

I think an individual is responsible for his or her own actions, and that you or I are not responsible for the actions of either people in the military or the military at-large.

Then you disagree with the Army Field Manual, under which these soldiers served:

according to Paragraph 501 of Army Field Manual 27-10, holds that a commander is legally responsible not only for orders handed down but "if he has actual knowledge, or should have knowledge ... that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed a war crime and he fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to insure compliance with the law of war or to punish violators thereof."

We have a volunteer Army with a civilian elected Commander in Chief, who is responsible for the actions of the Armed Services under him. You don't get to be a democracy and then pretend it's not on you when an arm of your state breaks the law.

Do I think we're as responsible as, say, Janis Karpinski? No. That doesn't absolve us from blame, particularly when we support a continuing cover up of what actually happened and increase the chances of it happening again.

 

[APF]

Then you disagree with the Army Field Manual, under which these soldiers served:

Ugh, what a disingenuous line of debate. Of course if you're in a position of responsibility over people, you are responsible for those people.

We have a volunteer Army with a civilian elected Commander in Chief, who is responsible for the actions of the Armed Services under him.

Having a volunteer army suggests that those volunteers are more responsible, since they chose to enlist. Compulsory enlistment means that every able-bodied person has been a part of that institution as part of the requirements for citizenship, and therefore share the burden of responsibility for the actions of that institution. We elect officials based on who we feel will lead the country best, but that's where our responsibility for those officials' actions end--unless we have recourse to throw them out of office. If you do not choose to vote for someone, or choose to vote for their removal, I don't see how you can be responsible for the actions of a branch of government under their guidance. Voting (or not voting) for leadership implies but does not necessitate support for those leaders' policies. Often people make the best choice on balance, but not in entirety.

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://www.cnbc.com//id/31082092

Stimulus Dollars Begin to Revive Construction Sector

Willie Fort is a lucky man.

Last month he came within a whisker of losing his construction job, but now he is off to Louisiana to work on a highway project that will employ him for at least two years.

The 32-year-old father of four from Mississippi is among hundreds of construction workers who are either keeping their jobs or finding new employment as the U.S. government's record $787 billion package to jump-start the economy is slowly disbursed.

"I was quite thrilled and very shocked," Fort said with a chuckle. "There was nothing lined up, so there was a big possibility that I could have been laid off."

But his employer, Texas-based Austin Bridge and Road, bid for some of the stimulus-funded construction projects across the United States, saving Fort and several other employees from joining the country's growing ranks of unemployed.

"We were getting ready to lay off about two dozen people on a project in Mississippi and as a result of having picked up one of the stimulus projects in Louisiana, we offered them all jobs," said Jim Andoga, the company's president. "We have not hired new people, but what this project did is to save 20 to 30 other jobs. The project is going to go into high gear in about three months and we are going to need to hire about 20 people more."

Not only has Fort avoided becoming a casualty as the longest recession since the Great Depression rages on, he also got a promotion.

"The job is going to require him to work a little further from home, but it's two years of steady employment. Last week we offered him a promotion to go there. He was the lead carpenter working on an hourly basis and we promoted him to foreman's position," said Andoga.

Construction Hardest Hit

The construction sector has been hardest hit by the housing-led recession, which is now in its 18th month.

According to Labor Department data, about 1.74 million construction workers were unemployed at the end of April.

The unemployment rate among construction workers slipped to 18.7 percent in April from 21.1 percent in March, but that's still more than double the national jobless rate of 8.9 percent. Job losses in the sector eased to 110,000 after declining 135,000 in March.

Contractors, companies and unions agree the massive stimulus package, criticized by some as mortgaging the country's future, was behind signs of improvement in the sector. The industry was allocated about $140 billion in federal dollars, mostly for work on highways and dams.

"Early reports indicate that the infrastructure piece of the stimulus is beginning to do exactly what was intended, to put construction workers back on the job," said Ken Simonson, chief economist for the Associated General Contractors of America in Arlington, Virginia.

Not only are hourly laborers getting a respite, but the improved economic tone is also benefiting white collar professionals, such as engaineers and project managers.

Austin Bridge and Road has retained 12 to 15 white collar jobs. The company, which employs about 1,200 workers across the country, had been "getting ready to lay off in the neighborhood of 50 to 60 white-collar and blue-collar workers, but these jobs were saved because of the stimulus," Andoga said.

Some companies have begun rehiring workers they were forced to fire or adding new workers.

Rehiring Laid-Off Workers

Rob Loch, owner of Loch Sand and Construction Company in Missouri, said he had rehired 15 laid-off workers after being awarded work to rebuild the interstate highway.

"We anticipate in the next couple of weeks several more hires as well. Without this job, none of these people would have been called back," Loch told Reuters.

In New Hampshire, Pike Industries hired 50 new workers and another 50 to 75 jobs were saved, spokesman Erik Taylor said.

"We have been hiring since March. People who got laid off in winter when work was slow were also recalled. We hope these will be permanent jobs; at this point we have a year to a year-and-a-half worth of work," said Taylor.

Jason Thornton is one of the new people hired by Pike Industries in April.

"Last fall is when I started looking around. I heard from the grapevine that Pike was looking for heavy equipment operators. It's great to be working again," said the 33-year-old father of four from New Hampshire. "I know a lot of people who are working for some surrounding companies who will attest to the fact that the economy is terrible and the stimulus money, whether you are for or against it, has put people back to work."

AGCA's Simonson said about 85 percent of construction companies have indicated they were scrapping layoffs or adding new employees because of the stimulus funds.

The early signs of positive results from the package could score political points for President Barack Obama.

Some, including Austin Bridge and Road's Andoga, have set aside fears the the debt-funded effort, which is expected to help push the U.S. budget deficit to about $1.8 trillion this fiscal year, could actually hurt the economy. The White House projects a budget gap equal to about to 13 percent of gross domestic product, which would be the highest since 1945.

But home builders are yet to reap direct benefits from the stimulus. Groundbreaking activity for new homes has been running near a record low as a glut of unsold homes and tight credit force builders to put construction plans on hold.

"I would be surprised if there are too many home building concerns that are hiring back workers that were laid off as a result of the stimulus package," said Jerry Howard, president of the National Association of Home Builders in Washington.

However, he said he anticipated the stimulus plan, which has a $8,000 tax rebate provision for first-time buyers, would generate over 160,000 home sales this year.​

 

[reilo]

We would have created 60million new jobs by now if we had given more tax cuts to the rich. Your rebuttal, Mr President!

 

[BigGreenMat]

I think it's amazing that people have bought the argument that there's nowhere safe in the US to hold them.

Here's a change up of that line of thinking people:

If our current prisons are incapable of holding these terrorists then are they capable of holding our serial killers, rapists, murderers, and tax evaders? Sounds like the government is tipping us off that our entire prison system is at risk. Frankly, I'd be more worried about the hundreds of thousands of criminals that can so easily escape over a handful of terrorists.

Call your representatives, if our prisons can not handle these detainees demand that they be able to because that means all the other people held there are also completely capable of getting out. They can't have it both ways, either our prisons can safely hold people or they can not, they can't be safe enough to hold American prisoners but not safe enough to hold foreign prisoners.

That is all a bullshit front. It is just another case of NIMBY mindsets. NIMBY is one of the biggest roadblocks to many initiatives that are necessary for this country (power generation from solar, wind, and nuclear is a good example). You ask anyone if they think it is a good idea and they say yes. You tell them there are going to be impacts in their area and they very quickly and violently oppose it. Most Dems are taking the very political position of being against Guantanamo's existence, but being against every action to truly close it down. It disgusts me personally the whole NIMBY attitude.

 

[besada]

If you do not choose to vote for someone, or choose to vote for their removal, I don't see how you can be responsible for the actions of a branch of government under their guidance. Voting (or not voting) for leadership implies but does not necessitate support for those leaders' policies. Often people make the best choice on balance, but not in entirety.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the relative responsibility of citizens in a democracy for the actions of their governments.

But man, being called disingenuous by you is like being called an asshole by Cheney.

 

[APF]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the relative responsibility of citizens in a democracy for the actions of their governments.

But man, being called disingenuous by you is like being called an asshole by Cheney.

Hey, at least I'm not saying you're responsible for some kid's rape

 

[besada]

Hey, at least I'm not saying you're responsible for some kid's rape

No, you're washing your hands of any responsibility for your government's actions. That must be convenient for you.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

During whose Administration did rendition start?

Easy. Reagan.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Easy. Reagan.

the CIA's rendition program started under clinton.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

the CIA's rendition program started under clinton.

Reagan laid the grounds for the rendition program. Clinton expanded it.

 

[speculawyer]

We have a rapper for President. :lol

 

[Xisiqomelir]

And if these were the first such photos, I'd say release them. But these are cumulative and displaced far in time such that an emotion reaction by the Arab street would be misplaced since things have changed.

I totally disagree. As Besada has said, there have been 0 charges of rape brought against anyone. By law, everyone up the chain of command should be slapped with it, but I at the very least expect Mr Nuremberg D. Rapist to go down for this.

Publish it all, let the courts sort out the rest.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Okay, so there was a difference between Reagan's rendition and Clinton's rendition. Reagan's rendition was kidnapping people to bring them to trial, while Clinton's rendition was outsouring torture.

 

[reilo]

I want to cry...

I just got my Graduation Loan Package (I'm graduating in two weeks), and I looked at the line that said "Estimated Repayment Amount".

This is far too much money to owe. I am at a loss for words right now. I don't even know what my monthly repayment amount is going to be.

 

[besada]

Not a big shock, but:

Israelis Say Bush Officials Agreed to Settlement Building
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/world/middleeast/04israel.html?ref=world

When Israel signed onto the so-called roadmap for a two-state solution in 2003, which says its government “freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements),” the officials said, it was after a detailed discussion with Bush officials that laid out those explicit limits.

“Not everything is written down,” said one of the officials.

He and others said that Israel agreed both to the roadmap and to move ahead with the removal of settlements and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 on the understanding that settlement growth could continue.

 

[WickedAngel]

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that it is fine to keep them secret. I rationalize it using evidence rules that say you are allowed to show something but only enough to get the point across and not so much that it becomes prejudicial. The original photos got the point across . . . releasing more now doesn't really give us new information, it just enrages emotions.


But here is a thought . . . conservatives are always staunch against any such release of photos since the effect it will have on the Arab street. Well . . . then why can't they see that that is pretty much the same reason we should not torture? Of course they'll say because it gets information . . . but enough info to rationalize the damage it does to our reputation? Is the delta of information received over traditional methods worth the damage to our nation? I just don't see that as a winning argument. Of course we never should have even been having this argument since torture is illegal. Period.

I don't see how you could come have come to that conclusion.

When people think about Abu Gharaib, they think about naked triangles, sleep deprivation, and dog attacks. Those are all bad things but the true nature of what happened is much, much worse.

Our people need to be offended because the average American just isn't easily motivated. You have to shock and terrify them to get anything out of them and this is the time where we need to absolutely condemn this kind of behavior forever. Words like "sodomy" and "rape" are much easier to digest than a picture that shows the grotesque act in full detail.

 

[dabig2]

I want to cry...

I just got my Graduation Loan Package (I'm graduating in two weeks), and I looked at the line that said "Estimated Repayment Amount".

This is far too much money to owe. I am at a loss for words right now. I don't even know what my monthly repayment amount is going to be.

The one thing I dread. That's why I'm in no rush to graduate and leave school. Already took "a year off" and plan to go to grad school after spring 2010. Just prolonging the inevitable, but I figure if I ignore it for a couple more years it'll go away on its own or I'll win the lottery..../sigh

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

We have a rapper for President. :lol

 

[besada]

http://michel.evanchik.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/capt9a5bcbd2f9c442d3ac7ba5d556a80998us_bush_mideast_saum124.jpg

So Obama went gold, but Bush went Platinum?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

So Obama went gold, but Bush went Platinum?

Putin went Gold too.

 

[APF]

I'm saddened by the fact that a fellow forum-goer is now responsible for rape, torture, starting illegal wars, slavery and the Civil War, and also, and most unforgivably, besada is responsible for Paris Hilton.

 

[besada]

I'm saddened by the fact that a fellow forum-goer is now responsible for rape, torture, starting illegal wars, slavery and the Civil War, and also, and most unforgivably, besada is responsible for Paris Hilton.

Nope, no responsibility for anything I don't personally do. You've absolved me of all those sticky moral questions involved in a democracy. I'm trying to be more like you.

Oh, wait, I should have waited a couple of hours before trying to get in a parting shot. I'll learn in time, surely.

 

[APF]

Should those responsible for torture be imprisoned?

 

[besada]

Should those responsible for torture be imprisoned?

Wow, talk about disingenuous. You've taught me so much today, APF, and I thank you.

 

[APF]

Wow, talk about disingenuous. You've taught me so much today, APF, and I thank you.

Oh you don't have to thank me; as a participant, my actions are your responsibility!

 

[besada]

Oh you don't have to thank me; as a participant, my actions are your responsibility!

I guess you can't handle agreeing to disagree, and that you enjoy showing off your third grade rhetorical traps, but frankly, I'm a little bored with it, and not willing to continue to shit up the thread.

Hopefully you're adult enough to do the same.

 

[APF]

I guess you can't handle agreeing to disagree, and that you enjoy showing off your third grade rhetorical traps, but frankly, I'm a little bored with it, and not willing to continue to shit up the thread.

Hopefully you're adult enough to do the same.

Meh, I only continued because you decided to continue attacking me, after comparing me to Dick Cheney.