"hoping the Senate will kick into gear because the public expects a lot more to get done." ?
vict0r
"There is a growing sense that we're lifting more than our share," says
California Rep. Xavier Becerra, a member of the Democrats' leadership team
in the House. "Members are hoping the Senate will kick into gear because the
public expects a lot more to get done."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30651.html
---
This would be the public that is overwhelmingly against Obamacare based on
an average of SIX DIFFERENT POLLS?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
The public expects what again?
This would be the public where based on a NTY poll, 78% of people are either
very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their health care?
The public expects what?
And this would be the public who never voted for this radical of a change to
health care because Obama campaigned AGAINST forced insurance and fines in
2008.
The public expects what??????
jane
> "There is a growing sense that we're lifting more than our share," says
> California Rep. Xavier Becerra, a member of the Democrats' leadership team
> in the House. "Members are hoping the Senate will kick into gear because the
> public expects a lot more to get done."
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30651.html
>
> ---
>
> This would be the public that is overwhelmingly against Obamacare based on
> an average of SIX DIFFERENT POLLS?
>
>
> The public expects what again?
>
> This would be the public where based on a NTY poll, 78% of people are either
> very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their health care?
>
> The public expects what?
>
> And this would be the public who never voted for this radical of a change to
> health care because Obama campaigned AGAINST forced insurance and fines in
> 2008.
>
> The public expects what??????
THIS member of the public doesn't want the Senate to kick into gear.
The only thing that gets accomplished when congress gets in gear is
the process of spending money; money we have AND money we don't have.
I voted for McCain, not because I am a republican, BUT because our
country is better run when the congress of one party is in conflict
the the administration of the other party.
The best time, in recent past, for this country was when we had a
republican congress and a democratic executive. The two worst times,
in recent past for this country were when we had a matched team in the
congress and the executive branches of government.
Our country runs best with limited government.
Jane.
GLOBALIST
was elected for one of many reasons, one being cleaning up are crazy
ass health care system, but guess what THE PARTY OF NO....spent the
summer shouting down Americans who wanted to discuss it, so Congress
has invested alot of time and energy already to formulating a bill AND
they are going to COMPLETE it. What a novel concept huh? By the
way...what do the polls say about the Republican party?
Geo
> California Rep. Xavier Becerra, a member of the Democrats' leadership team
> in the House. "Members are hoping the Senate will kick into gear because the
> public expects a lot more to get done."
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30651.html
>
> ---
>
> This would be the public that is overwhelmingly against Obamacare based on
> an average of SIX DIFFERENT POLLS?
>
>
> The public expects what again?
>
> This would be the public where based on a NTY poll, 78% of people are either
> very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their health care?
>
> The public expects what?
>
> And this would be the public who never voted for this radical of a change to
> health care because Obama campaigned AGAINST forced insurance and fines in
> 2008.
>
> The public expects what??????
Fixed the subject for you.
David Hartung
Those who would steal our liberty will not let something as minor as
public opinion get in their way.
GLOBALIST
came up with...If you refuse to participate in the debate and sit
there with your finger up your ass, then you gave up your own liberty.
Don't blame anyone else for being stupid.
vict0r
Show me the campaign speech where Obama promised to force insurance
purchases and fines if you don't do it.
Show me the C-SPAN debates on health care reform that Obama promised.
Show me the polls where the American people are demanding that this bill be
passed.
Show me the polls where the majority of Americans hate their health care
plan.
Show me how the cancer rates are lower in the UK and Canada than in the USA.
Show me these things and I'll drop all opposition and fully support
Obamacare.
vict0r
you mean this debate that Obama kinda sorta forgot about?
"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have
doctors and nurses and hospital administrator. Insurance companies, drug
companies - they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy
every chair. But what we'll do is we'll have the negotiations televised on
C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their
constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of drug companies or the
insurance companies."
- Barack Obama, August 2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/politics/politico/main4546031.shtml
---
Obama signs secret deal with big pharma
The [Drug] industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly
acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers
from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had
never spelled out the details of the agreement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1&hp
Kevin Cunningham
> vict0r wrote:
> > "There is a growing sense that we're lifting more than our share," says
> > California Rep. Xavier Becerra, a member of the Democrats' leadership team
> > in the House. "Members are hoping the Senate will kick into gear because the
> > public expects a lot more to get done."
>
> >http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30651.html
>
> > ---
>
> > This would be the public that is overwhelmingly against Obamacare based on
> > an average of SIX DIFFERENT POLLS?
>
>
> > The public expects what again?
>
> > This would be the public where based on a NTY poll, 78% of people are either
> > very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their health care?
>
> > The public expects what?
>
> > And this would be the public who never voted for this radical of a change to
> > health care because Obama campaigned AGAINST forced insurance and fines in
> > 2008.
>
> > The public expects what??????
>
> Those who would steal our liberty will not let something as minor as
> public opinion get in their way.
So how did you respond when your rights were directly taken away by
the Bush Administration? Your first amendment rights were taken away
when they listened in on your phone calls. Your fourth amendment
rights were removed when they conducted warrantless searches. The
people held at Guantanamo illegally and improperly never got your
support
And you didn't say a thing.
You couldn't open your mouth because freedom, to you, is when you feel
good. It has no meaning in the law or ethics because freedom and
rights means, to you, when you feel fine. Every thing else is just
another liberal trying to take some thing away from you.
This nation is based on law and you hate that.
David Hartung
The government cannot legally "listen in" on phone calls without a
warrant. What they can do is to collect call data, which is not the same
thing.
> Your fourth amendment
> rights were removed when they conducted warrantless searches.
Examples?
> The
> people held at Guantanamo illegally and improperly never got your
> support
They are the enemy, why should they not be held?
> And you didn't say a thing.
>
> You couldn't open your mouth because freedom, to you, is when you feel
> good. It has no meaning in the law or ethics because freedom and
> rights means, to you, when you feel fine. Every thing else is just
> another liberal trying to take some thing away from you.
>
> This nation is based on law and you hate that.
You have some interesting concepts.
Kevin Cunningham
And this is were Davie shows us all that he hates liberty and
freedom. His unbounded hatred for justice is overwhelming.
No matter what you call the sick invasion of privacy the government
was listening in to conversations with out obtaining a warrant from
the secret court that had been a part of the government spying
operation for years. It had approved about 99% of warrants for secret
listening and searches but the Bushies just didn't use them. And they
listened in on phone conversations. Got that? Warrantless wire taps
and warrantless searches.
That's not constitutional.
And now your profound fear of furriners is showing through. One part
of a criminal trial is to find out if the named defendant performed
the crime, the actus rea. In the case of Guantanamo we just don't
know. We never even held the most perfunctory proceedings to find out
if the detainee ever did anything.
I'm sure, you will oppose the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo to
Illinois. You are willing to kill the guilty but your not willing to
free the innocent. Your willing to have thousands of people about to
be murdered by this nation but your not willing to hold hearings to
find out if these Iranians are guilty of any crime.
You live in a nation with tons of prisons. Why do a few hundred
detainees scare you so?
David Hartung
> And this is were Davie shows us all that he hates liberty and
> freedom. His unbounded hatred for justice is overwhelming.
You still seem to be unable to respond to a post without engaging in
personal attacks. This is the sign of a very small and petty person.
> No matter what you call the sick invasion of privacy the government
> was listening in to conversations with out obtaining a warrant from
> the secret court that had been a part of the government spying
> operation for years. It had approved about 99% of warrants for secret
> listening and searches but the Bushies just didn't use them. And they
> listened in on phone conversations. Got that? Warrantless wire taps
> and warrantless searches.
please provide some sort of credible information which demonstrates that
the government was actually listening to phone calls, and not just
collecting call data information. I could be wrong, but it is my
understanding that the law allows for the collection only of the call
data information, that is the originating number, the terminating
number, and the date, time and duration of the call. To do anything
else, requires a warrant.
> That's not constitutional.
Wasn't this challenged in court, and upheld?
>
> And now your profound fear of furriners is showing through. One part
> of a criminal trial is to find out if the named defendant performed
> the crime, the actus rea. In the case of Guantanamo we just don't
> know. We never even held the most perfunctory proceedings to find out
> if the detainee ever did anything.
The Guantanamo prisoners are prisoners of war, they do not fall under
the penal code.
> I'm sure, you will oppose the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo to
> Illinois. You are willing to kill the guilty but your not willing to
> free the innocent. Your willing to have thousands of people about to
> be murdered by this nation but your not willing to hold hearings to
> find out if these Iranians are guilty of any crime.
Guantanamo Bay is the ideal place to hold prisoners of war, they need to
stay there.
Why do you want them transfered so badly?
Kevin Cunningham
Let me make this clear, your hatred of freedom and liberty, your
ignorance of the law and your acceptance of anything said by some one
you believe sets you out side a free society. You accept or reject
the person speaking then you accept the facts given you. The fact is
you are a follower, not a leader.
Warrants for wire tapping, and intercepting any part of a call is wire
tapping, can be issued by two courts. One is the normal court of
first instance. The other is for the use of the CIA and other
intelligence bodies, the results are secret but a rapid hearing is
held. Further more, if necessary, the wire tap or procedure can be
done prior to the obtaining of a secret warrant.
Bush ignored all of the above parts of a law and was slapped around by
the Supreme Court. They agreed to return to the law and policy.
When a person is taken prisoner of war they have the right to visits
from the Red Cross. These were denied. So these parties were not
held under any law. The holding of these parties falls out side of
any law or just the sense of right that any civilized party should
feel when confronted by a problem. We signed the Geneva Convention
and we ignored it. When Germans did the same thing they were tried at
Nuremberg.
And now for the fun part. We caused, by our illegal and immoral
actions, our own down fall. How many millions of Arabs were outraged
by our illegal and immoral treatment of prisoners at places like Abu
Graib? And how did our military and justice system work under Bush?
It didn't. It gave a few violators a slap on the wrist. And let
thousands of our troops die for nothing.
You still won't answer the question, why are you willing to have
thieves and murderers in local prisons? Doesn't that scare you
silly? So why are you so scared of some POW's? Didn't you know that
thousands of German POW's were shipped to America during WWII?
I think we won WWII.
David Hartung
You obviously have no idea what I hate, what I know, or what my decision
making process is.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, your postings have always been the
same. Completely lacking in rational thought.
> Warrants for wire tapping, and intercepting any part of a call is wire
> tapping, can be issued by two courts. One is the normal court of
> first instance. The other is for the use of the CIA and other
> intelligence bodies, the results are secret but a rapid hearing is
> held. Further more, if necessary, the wire tap or procedure can be
> done prior to the obtaining of a secret warrant.
>
> Bush ignored all of the above parts of a law and was slapped around by
> the Supreme Court. They agreed to return to the law and policy.
Then the problem is solved.
The Bush Administration was trying to protect people like you from
another attack. If the law, which was passed by a large bipartisan
majority, went overboard in some respects, then the system worked.
Instead of excoriating Bush for being less than perfect, you should be
giving him credit for trying to protecting you and your family.
> When a person is taken prisoner of war they have the right to visits
> from the Red Cross. These were denied. So these parties were not
> held under any law. The holding of these parties falls out side of
> any law or just the sense of right that any civilized party should
> feel when confronted by a problem. We signed the Geneva Convention
> and we ignored it. When Germans did the same thing they were tried at
> Nuremberg.
I see. Were the terrorists signatories of the Geneva convention? If not,
would it not be a logical conclusion that the convention has no binding
authority?
> And now for the fun part. We caused, by our illegal and immoral
> actions, our own down fall. How many millions of Arabs were outraged
> by our illegal and immoral treatment of prisoners at places like Abu
> Graib? And how did our military and justice system work under Bush?
If you are referring to the invasion if Iraq, it was neither illegal, or
immoral. The mistreatment of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were the
actions of a few acting outside the bounds, and they were punished. In
point of fact, the Army was in the middle of an investigation when the
media publicized and completely mis-characterized the events.
> It didn't. It gave a few violators a slap on the wrist. And let
> thousands of our troops die for nothing.
I see, what were these "slapps on the wrist"?
> You still won't answer the question, why are you willing to have
> thieves and murderers in local prisons? Doesn't that scare you
> silly? So why are you so scared of some POW's? Didn't you know that
> thousands of German POW's were shipped to America during WWII?
Guantanamo Bay is the ideal place to hold POWs, the facilities are good,
and escape is nearly impossible.
You still haven't explained why it is so important to move these
terrorists to the USA mainland.
Kevin Cunningham
And you still can't explain why we hold person at Guantanamo. You
still can't explain why we invaded Iraq. After 8 miserable years.
After 5,500+ men and women have died you can't explain why we are
there.
You still can't explain why we keep prisoners at a site we don't own.
Yeah, Guantanamo is owned by the state of Cuba and leased to us under
a Spanish-American war treaty. So why are you happy to have convicts
in your state and afraid of the Guantanamo detainees? Do you approve
of the French using Devil's Island?
The plain fact is we signed the Geneva Convention. We said we would
obey it. The fact that some one else does something wrong doesn't let
us do some thing wrong. If you are arrested for a crime it is an
invalid defense to claim that you had a right to do it because some
one else did the same thing.
The fact is that the Bush administration violated the law,
repeatedly. They did it knowingly, with consent. And you support the
fact that the Bushies did this and that they, for no known reason,
invaded a sovereign country. Now explain to me why Bush had a right
to invade Iraq.
You are happy to say that Bush was right but you can't explain why he
was right. Now explain, if you have the brains.
Why did we invade Iraq? Why did Bush allow our country to be
attacked? Why did Bush ignore the warnings that Clinton staffers gave
them?
And once again, you won't explain why we should keep prisoners at a
leased site?
David Hartung
> And you still can't explain why we hold person at Guantanamo. You
> still can't explain why we invaded Iraq. After 8 miserable years.
> After 5,500+ men and women have died you can't explain why we are
> there.
All this has been explained many times, your unwillingness to listen is
not the issue.
> You still can't explain why we keep prisoners at a site we don't own.
> Yeah, Guantanamo is owned by the state of Cuba and leased to us under
> a Spanish-American war treaty. So why are you happy to have convicts
> in your state and afraid of the Guantanamo detainees? Do you approve
> of the French using Devil's Island?
Just above I gave, what I believe to be a good reason to keep the
prispners at Guantanamo Bay. Would you be so kind as to explain wy it is
so important to move them?
> The plain fact is we signed the Geneva Convention. We said we would
> obey it. The fact that some one else does something wrong doesn't let
> us do some thing wrong. If you are arrested for a crime it is an
> invalid defense to claim that you had a right to do it because some
> one else did the same thing.
The Geneva Convention is an agreement between nations on the treatment
of prisoners of war. the scum we are fighting are not fighting in the
service of any nation-state, and they have not signed the convention.
Common sense says that they convention does not apply. In spite of this,
the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely. They have clean
and sanitary quarters, they are well fed, and are given the
accouterments they require to practice their faith. In truth, they have
no right to ask anything more than that.
> The fact is that the Bush administration violated the law,
> repeatedly. They did it knowingly, with consent. And you support the
> fact that the Bushies did this and that they, for no known reason,
> invaded a sovereign country. Now explain to me why Bush had a right
> to invade Iraq.
Do you pay any attention to anything posted by anyone?
> You are happy to say that Bush was right but you can't explain why he
> was right. Now explain, if you have the brains.
As has been said before, all this has been explained, and explained many
times.
> Why did we invade Iraq? Why did Bush allow our country to be
> attacked? Why did Bush ignore the warnings that Clinton staffers gave
> them?
>
> And once again, you won't explain why we should keep prisoners at a
> leased site?
OK, you obviously do not pay attention.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> And you still can't explain why we hold person at Guantanamo. You
>> still can't explain why we invaded Iraq. After 8 miserable years.
>> After 5,500+ men and women have died you can't explain why we are
>> there.
>
> All this has been explained many times, your unwillingness to listen
> is not the issue.
Nice shiny dodge you've got there, David..
>> You still can't explain why we keep prisoners at a site we don't own.
>> Yeah, Guantanamo is owned by the state of Cuba and leased to us under
>> a Spanish-American war treaty. So why are you happy to have convicts
>> in your state and afraid of the Guantanamo detainees? Do you approve
>> of the French using Devil's Island?
>
> Just above I gave, what I believe to be a good reason to keep the
> prispners at Guantanamo Bay. Would you be so kind as to explain
> wy it is so important to move them?
Well, first off, they're going to be tried by our courts,
and likely will need contact with their lawyers, and secondly
considering the reports of abuses and torture under the
W. Bush administration of this detention facility, I think
that they may have some interesting things to say about it..
Thirdly, if there was no 'wrong-doing' on the behalf of the
W. Bush administration's efforts, then I'd like to hear of it..
Otherwise, I'm pretty certain some right-wing bloviations
are going to be exposed for the contemptible frauds that
have been criminally perpetrated upon America..
It's a "win-win" situation..
>> The plain fact is we signed the Geneva Convention. We said we would
>> obey it. The fact that some one else does something wrong doesn't let
>> us do some thing wrong. If you are arrested for a crime it is an
>> invalid defense to claim that you had a right to do it because some
>> one else did the same thing.
>
> The Geneva Convention is an agreement between nations on the treatment
> of prisoners of war. the scum we are fighting are not fighting in the
> service of any nation-state, and they have not signed the convention.
> Common sense says that they convention does not apply.
Your "common sense" is dubious, and lowers our nation's ethical
standards to that of the terrorists. That's precisely as they
have intended, David.
Example follows..
> the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely.
Oh really?
> They have clean and sanitary quarters, they are well fed, and
> are given the accouterments they require to practice their
> faith. In truth, they have no right to ask anything more than that.
Due process is too much to ask, after years of false imprisonment?
>> The fact is that the Bush administration violated the law,
>> repeatedly. They did it knowingly, with consent. And you support the
>> fact that the Bushies did this and that they, for no known reason,
>> invaded a sovereign country. Now explain to me why Bush had a right
>> to invade Iraq.
>
> Do you pay any attention to anything posted by anyone?
Yes, but I have pointed out how your opinions are ill-informed
on several occasions, and this, David, is one of those occasions..
>> You are happy to say that Bush was right but you can't explain
>> why he was right. Now explain, if you have the brains.
>
> As has been said before, all this has been explained, and explained
> many times.
Nice shiny dodge you've got there, David..
>> Why did we invade Iraq? Why did Bush allow our country to be
>> attacked? Why did Bush ignore the warnings that Clinton staffers
>> gave them?
*>cricket.wav<*
--Your support of a right-wing fascist "oiligarchy" is noted..
David Hartung
> On 12/18/2009 10:37 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>>>
>>> And you still can't explain why we hold person at Guantanamo. You
>>> still can't explain why we invaded Iraq. After 8 miserable years.
>>> After 5,500+ men and women have died you can't explain why we are
>>> there.
>>
>> All this has been explained many times, your unwillingness to listen
>> is not the issue.
>
> Nice shiny dodge you've got there, David..
>
>>> You still can't explain why we keep prisoners at a site we don't own.
>>> Yeah, Guantanamo is owned by the state of Cuba and leased to us under
>>> a Spanish-American war treaty. So why are you happy to have convicts
>>> in your state and afraid of the Guantanamo detainees? Do you approve
>>> of the French using Devil's Island?
>>
>> Just above I gave, what I believe to be a good reason to keep the
>> prispners at Guantanamo Bay. Would you be so kind as to explain
>> wy it is so important to move them?
>
> Well, first off, they're going to be tried by our courts,
> and likely will need contact with their lawyers, and secondly
> considering the reports of abuses and torture under the
> W. Bush administration of this detention facility, I think
> that they may have some interesting things to say about it..
One of the biggest mistakes the Bush administration made, was the
decision to try these clowns. They are prisoners of war, we hold them
until the war on terrorists(terrorism) is over, and if they are still
alive, we release them. Until such time, Guantanamo Bay is the ideal
lace to keep them.
> Thirdly, if there was no 'wrong-doing' on the behalf of the
> W. Bush administration's efforts, then I'd like to hear of it..
>
> Otherwise, I'm pretty certain some right-wing bloviations
> are going to be exposed for the contemptible frauds that
> have been criminally perpetrated upon America..
I find it very interesting that a good honorable man, George W Bush,
tries to protect you, and for no other reason than that you dislike
conservatives, you accuse him of criminal activity.
>
> It's a "win-win" situation..
>
>>> The plain fact is we signed the Geneva Convention. We said we would
>>> obey it. The fact that some one else does something wrong doesn't let
>>> us do some thing wrong. If you are arrested for a crime it is an
>>> invalid defense to claim that you had a right to do it because some
>>> one else did the same thing.
>>
>> The Geneva Convention is an agreement between nations on the treatment
>> of prisoners of war. the scum we are fighting are not fighting in the
>> service of any nation-state, and they have not signed the convention.
>> Common sense says that they convention does not apply.
>
> Your "common sense" is dubious, and lowers our nation's ethical
> standards to that of the terrorists. That's precisely as they
> have intended, David.
How so? We treat these men humanely, we simply confine them. The
terrorists on the other hand torture, abuse and execute their prisoners.
> Example follows..
>
>> the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely.
>
> Oh really?
>
>
>> They have clean and sanitary quarters, they are well fed, and
>> are given the accouterments they require to practice their
>> faith. In truth, they have no right to ask anything more than that.
>
> Due process is too much to ask, after years of false imprisonment?
As combatants, they do not have access to "due process". Such an idea is
idiotic on its face.
>>> The fact is that the Bush administration violated the law,
>>> repeatedly. They did it knowingly, with consent. And you support the
>>> fact that the Bushies did this and that they, for no known reason,
>>> invaded a sovereign country. Now explain to me why Bush had a right
>>> to invade Iraq.
>>
>> Do you pay any attention to anything posted by anyone?
>
> Yes, but I have pointed out how your opinions are ill-informed
> on several occasions, and this, David, is one of those occasions..
You are welcome to believe what you wish. You also engage in reasonable
conversation, Cunningham does not.
John Q Public
your support of a power hungry marxist is noted ass lick!
Kevin Cunningham
A typical gutless response by some Davie. He still has no reason why
5,500 + of our brave soldiers had to die in Iraq. No reason at all.
The fact is, Davie, that Bush lied through his teeth. He ran the CIA
and the rest of the intelligence system in the US. He said things
were facts and they were lies. And you haven't got the guts to say
the obvious fact, Bush lied.
You have no proof how we keep any one. You still can't come up with a
reason why they had to be held at Guantanamo. So tell us, why did we
keep the Red Cross out of there? What was the reason that the
prisoners didn't have counsel? The Supreme Court slapped them around
for that.
Why didn't the press have the right to enter Guantanamo and interview
prisoners? It's their right here in the States, why not any were?
And you don't understand logic at all. If some one burgles a house
and doesn't get caught do you have a right to burgle a house? That is
the logic you're using. We agreed to the Geneva convention. We
didn't obey it. We are wrong for that.
And what you ignored speaks volumes about your personal morality. You
couldn't defend Abu Graib. But you defended the people who ordered
that atrocity. You were willing to watch as a few low down personnel
were punished for the crimes of the men and women who ordered it.
Typical. Just typical.
Dave Heil
They can't get away. There's a bottleneck between them and Fidel-land.
There are shark-infested waters between them and the U.S.
> You
> still can't explain why we invaded Iraq.
It has been explained. That you don't accept the explanation is your
problem.
> After 8 miserable years.
Miserable years? I've not been miserable. You seem to have been.
> After 5,500+ men and women have died you can't explain why we are
> there.
It has been explained. You don't like the explanation. Tough.
> You still can't explain why we keep prisoners at a site we don't own.
If I lease a house, I can pretty much treat the house as my own. Ditto
for leasing a car. We hold a long-term lease on Gitmo. Got it now?
> Yeah, Guantanamo is owned by the state of Cuba and leased to us under
> a Spanish-American war treaty.
So you DID know after all!
> So why are you happy to have convicts
> in your state and afraid of the Guantanamo detainees?
I'd be happy if we didn't have lawbreakers in my state but we do. I'm
not afraid of Gitmo detainees.
> Do you approve
> of the French using Devil's Island?
Yes.
> The plain fact is we signed the Geneva Convention. We said we would
> obey it. The fact that some one else does something wrong doesn't let
> us do some thing wrong. If you are arrested for a crime it is an
> invalid defense to claim that you had a right to do it because some
> one else did the same thing.
The Gitmo detainees do not represent a government which is a party to
the Geneva Convention. They do not represent a government at all. They
do not abide by the Geneva Convention.
> The fact is that the Bush administration violated the law,
> repeatedly.
Stuff it, Kevin.
> They did it knowingly, with consent.
Stuff it, Kevin.
> And you support the
> fact that the Bushies did this and that they, for no known reason,
> invaded a sovereign country.
It is known to others but not, despite repeated explanations, to you.
That's your problem.
> Now explain to me why Bush had a right
> to invade Iraq.
Bush didn't invade Iraq. The United States, with the blessing of its
Congress did so. You don't like it. Tough.
> You are happy to say that Bush was right but you can't explain why he
> was right. Now explain, if you have the brains.
It has been explained. You don't like it. You don't get to continue
demanding further explanation just because you aren't capable of
understanding.
> Why did we invade Iraq? Why did Bush allow our country to be
> attacked? Why did Bush ignore the warnings that Clinton staffers gave
> them?
See what I mean? You aren't capable of understanding.
> And once again, you won't explain why we should keep prisoners at a
> leased site?
Read my response over and over and over as many times as you like.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was again amused by the false pretences assumed by:
>>
>> On 12/18/2009 10:37 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And you still can't explain why we hold person at Guantanamo. You
>>>> still can't explain why we invaded Iraq. After 8 miserable years.
>>>> After 5,500+ men and women have died you can't explain why we are
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> All this has been explained many times, your unwillingness to listen
>>> is not the issue.
>>
>> Nice shiny dodge you've got there, David..
*>cricket.wav<*
>>>> You still can't explain why we keep prisoners at a site we don't own.
>>>> Yeah, Guantanamo is owned by the state of Cuba and leased to us under
>>>> a Spanish-American war treaty. So why are you happy to have convicts
>>>> in your state and afraid of the Guantanamo detainees? Do you approve
>>>> of the French using Devil's Island?
>>>
>>> Just above I gave, what I believe to be a good reason to keep the
>>> prispners at Guantanamo Bay. Would you be so kind as to explain
>>> wy it is so important to move them?
>>
>> Well, first off, they're going to be tried by our courts,
>> and likely will need contact with their lawyers, and secondly
>> considering the reports of abuses and torture under the
>> W. Bush administration of this detention facility, I think
>> that they may have some interesting things to say about it..
>
> One of the biggest mistakes the Bush administration made,
> was the decision to try these clowns. They are prisoners
> of war,
Then why were they called "detainees"? And what declared
"war" are you even talking about, just to be clear..
> we hold them until the war on terrorists(terrorism) is over,
That's vague and indefinite, David. I cannot accept such,
and consider such extra-legal actions like this to be based
upon nothing more than lies from a failed political ideology,
of a petty and needlessly vindictive nature..
Example follows..
> and if they are still alive, we release them. Until such
> time, Guantanamo Bay is the ideal lace to keep them.
Right, never mind that they were tortured..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14936-2004Dec20?language=printer
FBI Agents Allege Abuse of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay
"Detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
were shackled to the floor in fetal positions for more than 24
hours at a time, left without food and water, and allowed to
defecate on themselves, an FBI agent who said he witnessed such
abuse reported in a memo to supervisors, according to documents
released yesterday."
What's even more telling is that KSM was subjected to water-boarding
over 180 times, even after he'd given up more information than
could have been expected. My thoughts on this is that he must've
been some kind of double-agent, worked with the previous Bush
administration during the first operations during the Iraq-Kuwait
conflict, and has been involved with the right-wingers in a
clandestine operation to remove Saddam from power for years..
In any case, this treatment of a "prisoner' goes beyond any
sort of 'humane' treatment of a prisoner of war, and I think
that it's likely going to come back to haunt the right-wing
much like the war-crimes committed by concentration camps
during WWII, with the perpetrators being hunted down and
put on trial decades later. That includes W. Bush too..
>> Thirdly, if there was no 'wrong-doing' on the behalf of the
>> W. Bush administration's efforts, then I'd like to hear of it..
>>
>> Otherwise, I'm pretty certain some right-wing bloviations
>> are going to be exposed for the contemptible frauds that
>> have been criminally perpetrated upon America..
>>
>> It's a "win-win" situation..
>
> I find it very interesting that a good honorable man,
> George W Bush, tries to protect you,
I do not believe that George W. Bush was "a good honorable man"
nor do I find his actions to that of a world leader trying to
protect my country. He and his administration deliberately
set out to "abhor all things Clinton" and thought and spoke
of themselves as an empire that made their own reality..
That said, I conclude that they put their own ambitions and
self-interests above the objective of keeping our country
safe from terrorist attacks, and may have acted in collusion
with the terrorists in the years prior to the WTC attacks.
Yet, you've tried to dismiss this possibility as just some
sort of personal vendetta on my behalf..
> and for no other reason than that you dislike conservatives,
> you accuse him of criminal activity.
The mistake you make in assuming such is that it tells me
precisely what you would do, and during President Clinton'
administration, your so-called conservatives made quite
the charges of criminal activity(s) about him, personally..
And conversely, the mistake I make is assuming that you'll
be reasonable enough to step outside of your narrow minded
political ideology and reflect some upon the possibility
that the Bush-Cheney junta lied to you, and you're still
too gullible about it all (as well as global warming) to
reconsider how you've been manipulated psychologically..
F'rinstance..
>>>> The plain fact is we signed the Geneva Convention. We said we would
>>>> obey it. The fact that some one else does something wrong doesn't let
>>>> us do some thing wrong. If you are arrested for a crime it is an
>>>> invalid defense to claim that you had a right to do it because some
>>>> one else did the same thing.
>>>
>>> The Geneva Convention is an agreement between nations on the treatment
>>> of prisoners of war. the scum we are fighting are not fighting in the
>>> service of any nation-state, and they have not signed the convention.
>>> Common sense says that they convention does not apply.
>>
>> Your "common sense" is dubious, and lowers our nation's ethical
>> standards to that of the terrorists. That's precisely as they
>> have intended, David.
>>
>> Example follows..
>
> How so?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14936-2004Dec20?language=printer
"The accounts, gleaned from heavily redacted e-mails
and memorandums, were obtained by the American Civil
Liberties Union as part of an ongoing lawsuit. They
suggest that extremely aggressive interrogation techniques
were more widespread at Guantanamo Bay than was acknowledged
by military officials.
The documents also make it clear that some personnel
at Guantanamo Bay believed they were relying on authority
from senior officials in Washington to conduct aggressive
interrogations. One FBI agent wrote a memo referring to
a presidential order that approved interrogation methods
"beyond the bounds of standard FBI practice," although
White House and FBI officials said yesterday that such
an order does not exist."
> We treat these men humanely, we simply confine them.
Bullshit..
> The terrorists on the other hand torture, abuse and
> execute their prisoners.
Okay, so where do we get off treating prisoners like they do?
>>> the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely.
>>
>> Oh really?
>>
>>> They have clean and sanitary quarters, they are well fed, and
>>> are given the accouterments they require to practice their
>>> faith. In truth, they have no right to ask anything more than that.
>>
>> Due process is too much to ask, after years of false imprisonment?
>
> As combatants, they do not have access to "due process".
Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you..
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_legal.htm
> Such an idea is idiotic on its face.
From you, particularly..
>>>> The fact is that the Bush administration violated the law,
>>>> repeatedly. They did it knowingly, with consent. And you support the
>>>> fact that the Bushies did this and that they, for no known reason,
>>>> invaded a sovereign country. Now explain to me why Bush had a right
>>>> to invade Iraq.
>>>
>>> Do you pay any attention to anything posted by anyone?
>>
>> Yes, but I have pointed out how your opinions are ill-informed
>> on several occasions, and this, David, is one of those occasions..
>
> You are welcome to believe what you wish.
It's not a matter of 'belief', except on your behalf, David..
> You also engage in reasonable conversation,
Yes, you should try it sometime, it can be quite refreshing to
try and see the events around us from a different perspective..
--But I disagree entirely with what you're glossing off about..
Man_of_Mind
> One of the biggest mistakes the Bush administration made,
> was the decision to try these clowns
The "Bush administration", such as it was, had no say
in the matter. It was the Supreme Court that brought it about..
>> Due process is too much to ask, after years of false imprisonment?
>
> As combatants, they do not have access to "due process". Such an idea is
> idiotic on its face.
The Supreme Court disagrees, specifically as..
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_legal.htm
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
"On June 28, 2004, the US Supreme Court handed down two decisions
related to the detention of 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba. In the first one, 03-6696: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/policy/national/03-6696.pdf
the US Supreme Court, held that "although Congress authorized
the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged
here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States
as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest
the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker."
In the second case, 03-334: Rasul v. Bush,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/policy/national/03-334.pdf
the Supreme Court held, among other things, that "United States
courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality
of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection
with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay." The US
Administration had, prior to the decision, held that, though
Guantanamo Bay was leased, run, administered, and controlled
by the United States, the land was still effectively Cuban, and
that therefore US courts should not have jurisdiction over that
tract of Cuban territory.
On November 7, 2005, the United States Supreme Court agreed to
hear a legal challenge to the Bush administration's use of military
tribunals to try foreign terror suspects. The specific case in
question is that of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who is accused of being
a driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden.
On June 29, 2006, the United States Supreme Court handed down a
decision on 05-184: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/policy/national/05-184.pdf
The Supreme Court ruled that the current military commissions
were illegal under US law and under the Geneva Conventions, and
could not continue. U.S officals will now have to figure out
another way to try the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
On June 29, 2007, the US Supreme Court announced that it would
hear arguments about whether or not detainees held at Guanatanamo
Bay can challenge their detention in a U.S. federal court; this
announcement reversed an earlier April 2007 decision not to hear
arguments on this issue. The cases were Boumediene v. Bush, 06-1195,
and Al Odah v. U.S., 06-1196.
On June 12, 2008, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision
on 06-1195: Boumediene v. Bush,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/policy/national/06-1195.pdf
ruling in a 5-4 vote that "Petitioners have the constitutional
privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the
writ or invoking the Suspension Clause�s protections because they
have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence
at Guantanamo." Moreover, The Supreme Court rejected the Bush
Administration's position that the Suspension Clause affords
detainees at Guantanamo Bay "no rights because the United States
does not claim sovereignty over the naval station". Instead, it
ruled that while the "Court does not question the Government�s
position that Cuba maintains sovereignty, in the legal and technical
sense, over Guantanamo, but it does not accept the Government�s
premise that de jure sovereignty is the touchstone of habeas
jurisdiction."
--Just thought I'd let you know..
David Hartung
we don't, and never have.
The shackling, if it actually happened, might constitute mistreatment,
but is is far from torture.
>>>> the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely.
>>>
>>> Oh really?
>>>
>>>> They have clean and sanitary quarters, they are well fed, and
>>>> are given the accouterments they require to practice their
>>>> faith. In truth, they have no right to ask anything more than that.
>>>
>>> Due process is too much to ask, after years of false imprisonment?
>>
>> As combatants, they do not have access to "due process".
>
> Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you..
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_legal.htm
Understood, but in this case, I happen to believe that the court has erred.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind continued heckling the false premises posted by::
*>cricket.wav<*
*>cricket.wav<*
*>cricket.wav<*
>>>> Thirdly, if there was no 'wrong-doing' on the behalf of the
>>>> W. Bush administration's efforts, then I'd like to hear of it..
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, I'm pretty certain some right-wing bloviations
>>>> are going to be exposed for the contemptible frauds that
>>>> have been criminally perpetrated upon America..
>>>>
>>>> It's a "win-win" situation..
>>>
>>> I find it very interesting that a good honorable man,
>>> George W Bush, tries to protect you,
>>
>> I do not believe that George W. Bush was "a good honorable man"
>> nor do I find his actions to that of a world leader trying to
>> protect my country. He and his administration deliberately
>> set out to "abhor all things Clinton" and thought and spoke
>> of themselves as an empire that made their own reality..
>>
>> That said, I conclude that they put their own ambitions and
>> self-interests above the objective of keeping our country
>> safe from terrorist attacks, and may have acted in collusion
>> with the terrorists in the years prior to the WTC attacks.
>>
>> Yet, you've tried to dismiss this possibility as just some
>> sort of personal vendetta on my behalf..
*>cricket.wav<*
*>cricket.wav<*
>>> We treat these men humanely, we simply confine them.
>>
>> Bullshit..
>>
>>> The terrorists on the other hand torture, abuse and
>>> execute their prisoners.
>>
>> Okay, so where do we get off treating prisoners like they do?
>
> we don't, and never have.
The facts contradict you, David..
> The shackling, if it actually happened
You're again insinuating that it didn't happen, right after
I posted several reports regarding instances where it did..
How do rationalize that, David?
>>>>> the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely.
>>>>
>>>> Oh really?
>>>>
>>>>> They have clean and sanitary quarters, they are well fed, and
>>>>> are given the accouterments they require to practice their
>>>>> faith. In truth, they have no right to ask anything more than that.
>>>>
>>>> Due process is too much to ask, after years of false imprisonment?
>>>
>>> As combatants, they do not have access to "due process".
>>
>> Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you..
>>
>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_legal.htm
>
> Understood, but in this case, I happen to believe that the court has erred.
Happily, I know that wiser minds have prevailed in this matter..
--And will prevail even further as time goes by..
David Hartung
I distrust the Washington Post, and haven't the time to check it out.
>>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_legal.htm
>>
>> Understood, but in this case, I happen to believe that the court has
>> erred.
>
> Happily, I know that wiser minds have prevailed in this matter..
>
> --And will prevail even further as time goes by..
Until such time as the people wise up and stop putting the left in
office, and until such time as quacks such as appointed by Clinton and
Obama are removed from the bench I fear you are correct.
We need a court composed of more men like Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the facts, cites and details avoided by:
>>
>> On 12/19/2009 6:24 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
*>cricket.wav<*
*>cricket.wav<*
*>cricket.wav<*
*>cricket.wav<*
>>>>>>>> The plain fact is we signed the Geneva Convention. We said we would
*>cricket.wav<*
>>> The shackling, if it actually happened
>>
>> You're again insinuating that it didn't happen, right after
>> I posted several reports regarding instances where it did..
>>
>> How do [you] rationalize that, David?
>
> I distrust the Washington Post
I've cited several other sources that confirm those reports..
Do you want me to find even more detailed evidence of this?
Or, will you just delete that which disputes your beliefs?
>>>>>>> the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have clean and sanitary quarters, they are well fed, and
>>>>>>> are given the accouterments they require to practice their
>>>>>>> faith. In truth, they have no right to ask anything more than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Due process is too much to ask, after years of false imprisonment?
>>>>>
>>>>> As combatants, they do not have access to "due process".
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you..
>>>>
>>>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_legal.htm
>>>
>>> Understood, but in this case, I happen to believe that the court has erred.
>>
>> Happily, I know that wiser minds have prevailed in this matter..
>>
>> --And will prevail even further as time goes by..
>
> Until such time as the people wise up and stop putting the
> left in office, and until such time as quacks such as
Those would be false generalization, on your behalf..
> I fear you are correct.
Why would you fear wiser minds prevailing in the judiciary?
Oh, never mind.. You've made that clear..
> We need a court composed of more men like Alito, Scalia, Thomas
> and Roberts.
Ahh, spineless right-wing appointees, kow-towing to the
corporate fascist "free-market" ideologies espoused by
false doctrine..
--Why do you bear false witness to all this, David?
David Hartung
> Ahh, spineless right-wing appointees, kow-towing to the
> corporate fascist "free-market" ideologies espoused by
> false doctrine..
You may be an accomplished physicist, but your postings indicate that
you have chosen to lay aside your intellect when it comes to political
matters, in my humble opinion.
Kevin Cunningham
And once again Davie can't explain why a captured alleged combatant
isn't inspected and provided with letters and packages from home via
the Red Cross. If they don't have access to the Red Cross, like any
other captured combatant, why don't they have access to the courts?
See, Davie can't really answer questions. He is thrilled to say that
he gave those answers at some indistinct time in the past but he
absolutely won't provide any facts. He provides no facts about care
of the detainees, their rights and who will try them or release them.
Davie makes great comments about prisoner care but he won't detail how
he know this crap. Basically it is all made up, like I said before,
no facts.
If Davie used the same procedures as a German soldier he would have
been tried at Nuremberg and incarcerated for a term of years. What he
proposes is illegal and immoral.
The best thing is he supports his disgraced former president, the
worst president in history. No one in the repug party supports Bush
but Davie is ready, willing and able.
Defense of the indefensible. How repug.
Kevin Cunningham
Gee, Davie, did you know that the law requires you to actually explain
how, why and the precedents for a legal action? But not good 'ole
Davie. He just says that the court erred, as though that means any
thing.
Come on, Davie, give us the reasons why. This is a usenet discussion
group, so discuss. This time use facts.
Kevin Cunningham
What quacks? Come on, you can't answer the question of what do you
expect from a court. You're incapable of that.
But just calling a judge, appointed for life, a quack is not enough.
Kevin Cunningham
Yeah......Davie, you're happy to make a few gestures backed by
nothing. If you had some facts, any at all, then you should show said
facts.
But you can't do that, no facts. Just your opinions.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious evasions and obfuscations posted by:
>>
>> On 12/19/2009 11:26 AM, David Hartung deleted and bleated:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the facts, cites and details avoided by:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2009 6:24 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind continued heckling the false premises posted by::
>>>>>>
-------
>>>>>>> The terrorists on the other hand torture, abuse and
>>>>>>> execute their prisoners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, so where do we get off treating prisoners like they do?
>>>>>
>>>>> we don't, and never have.
>>>>
>>>> The facts contradict you, David..
>>>>
>>>>> The shackling, if it actually happened
>>>>
>>>> You're again insinuating that it didn't happen, right after
>>>> I posted several reports regarding instances where it did..
>>>>
>>>> How do [you] rationalize that, David?
>>>
>>> I distrust the Washington Post
>>
>> I've cited several other sources that confirm those reports..
>>
>> Do you want me to find even more detailed evidence of this?
>>
>> Or, will you just delete that which disputes your beliefs?
Hrmm, I guess you answered that question, didn't you?
>>>>>>>>> the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are treated humanely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They have clean and sanitary quarters, they are well fed, and
>>>>>>>>> are given the accouterments they require to practice their
>>>>>>>>> faith. In truth, they have no right to ask anything more than that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Due process is too much to ask, after years of false imprisonment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As combatants, they do not have access to "due process".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_legal.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Understood, but in this case, I happen to believe that the court has erred.
>>>>
>>>> Happily, I know that wiser minds have prevailed in this matter..
>>>>
>>>> --And will prevail even further as time goes by..
>>>
>>> Until such time as the people wise up and stop putting the
>>> left in office, and until such time as quacks such as
>>
>> Those would be false generalization, on your behalf..
>>
>>> I fear you are correct.
>>
>> Why would you fear wiser minds prevailing in the judiciary?
>>
>> Oh, never mind.. You've made that clear..
>>
>>> We need a court composed of more men like Alito, Scalia, Thomas
>>> and Roberts.
>>
>> Ahh, spineless right-wing appointees, kow-towing to the
>> corporate fascist "free-market" ideologies espoused by
>> false doctrine..
>>
>> --Why do you bear false witness to all this, David?
>
> You may be an accomplished physicist,
Thanks, the best is yet to be..
> but your postings indicate that you have chosen to lay aside
> your intellect when it comes to political matters
Really? And how have the sciences progressed under right-wing
administrations such as you would prefer elected to office?
The answer is: Not much, if at all, because of the incorporation
of religious fundamentalism into a failed political ideology,
known specifically as "neoconservativism". Goldwater, on his
death-bed spoke out against what that political party has become,
and my own experience since the days of the Apollo moon missions
is that anything being done by science that doesn't kow-tow to
that religious fundamentalism incorporated by your failed political
ideology is derided, under-funded and ignored..
So, with that answer in mind, tell me why you have chosen to
lay aside your so-called christian morals when it comes to
political matters?
--Do not think, for a moment, that your hypocrisy will go unchallenged..
David Hartung
What Christian morals have I laid aside?
Kevin Cunningham
You approve of killing.
Man_of_Mind
> Man_of_Mind wrote:
>> On 12/19/2009 12:36 PM, David Hartung deleted and bleated, the usual:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious evasions and obfuscations posted by:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2009 11:26 AM, David Hartung deleted and bleated:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the facts, cites and details avoided by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/19/2009 6:24 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind continued heckling the false premises posted by::
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/18/2009 11:54 AM, David Hartung stated, for some odd reason:
-------
A better question would be "Which ones have you not laid
aside for the sake of your failed political ideology?"
--Rendering unto Caeser that which is God's..
David Hartung
The really funny thing is that when I respond in such a manner to one of
your questions, you accuse me of being non-responsive or of avoiding the
question.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 12/20/2009 6:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2009 12:36 PM, David Hartung deleted and bleated, the usual:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious evasions and obfuscations posted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/19/2009 11:26 AM, David Hartung deleted and bleated:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the facts, cites and details avoided by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2009 6:24 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind continued heckling the false premises posted by::
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/18/2009 11:54 AM, David Hartung stated, for some odd reason:
Usually with yet another question, or evasion of what I asked..
> you accuse me of being non-responsive or of avoiding the question.
Yup, which you have just provided yet another example of..
--Thus proving my point about you for me..
Kevin Cunningham
Gee, Davie when have you ever, and I mean ever, produced any facts?
You once posted a fake scientific paper but to say the least it had no
attribution, it was a fake.
Now you don't even produce fakes, just lots of whining and
blubbering. You even defended the indefensible, George Bush.
No facts but you are a conservative, you guys just don't like facts.