Quote:

---

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Hmm. Well I just watched the vid and rather than jump into the scrum with everyone about minutia (Cheney this, Obama that) I'll just offer a general observation about MSNBC.

This clip is a perfect example of how their network is an insult to journalism. The very way Madow opens her piece speaks volumes.

We begin tonight with a tale of 2 speeches, both from the same man, both from Obama. One speech that could have been billed as a ballad to the constitution, a proclimation of american values, a repuduation of the lawless behavior of the last presidential administration. And another speech: announcing a radical new claim of presidential power that is not afforded by the constitution and that has never been attempted in american history, even by George W Bush and Dick Cheney.

My god. This isn't just slant, this is a 90 degree sheerwall. Is this the kind of stuff MSNBC puts out daily? I never watch so I cannot know. She (or the network I should say, she's a mouthpiece) completely frames the discussion into biased confines with the very opening. I can see how less intelligent viewers would be swayed, it's just propaganda. Blind propaganda taken straight from the playbook of Goebbels.

Propaganda: The dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of people which stands opposite to the concept of impartially. Propaganda in its most basic sense proffers information primarily in order to influence an audience with selective facts to encourage a particular synthesis, or frames a subject pre-emptively, in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.

Beyond the framing of the subject, she and our president Just--Keep--Reminding--Us about "Bush" and "Cheney". I wonder if this will work in 2012 when it will actually matter for them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WASHnwear:
no one lately has kept me more mindful of Bush and Cheney than Cheney himself. I suppose being out of office carries with it no obligation to shut up, but still...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Cites and quote please. Back up your opinion with fact. Being a lawyer, it should be EASY for you to find the aforesaid "regulations". And if you can't find them....

---

Quote:

---

The CRA bill was later revitalized by Bill Clinton, who forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make bogus loans. This is explained, in part, by Terry Jones, writing for Yahoo!

---

Quote:

---

After entering office in 1993, Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
FANNIE AND FREDDIE DID NOT WRITE LOANS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
kpo - if Cheney is a liar, then so are Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, George Tenet, and countless others.

So, why are you focusing in on Cheney again?

---

Heh.... Yep.

Now you're learning Rap!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

---

Quote:

---

Oh, I get it - Rachel Maddow is a "dude" because she's gay. Huh. Didn't realize your homophobia was so deeply entrenched.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Maybe you should learn to read.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
kpo - if Cheney is a liar, then so are Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, George Tenet, and countless others.

So, why are you focusing in on Cheney again?

---

Quote:

---

AuRaptor wrote:
I couldn't help but notice that my question to Kwickie went unanswered.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

AuRaptor wrote:
I couldn't help but notice that my question to Kwickie went unanswered.

---

What question? The one you quoted above, which you addressed to KPO? Was that one that I was supposed to answer? Should I have *clearly* known that you meant me when you addressed it to someone else?


Mike]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

AuRaptor wrote:
I couldn't help but notice that my question to Kwickie went unanswered.

---

What question? The one you quoted above, which you addressed to KPO? Was that one that I was supposed to answer? Should I have *clearly* known that you meant me when you addressed it to someone else?


Mike]

---

kwickie

Cite 1 lie that Cheney's said.

Just one.

Nice dodge. You flatly stated that Cheney lied. I asked - where ? You opted to not answer, nor have you stated why you focus only on Cheney, if all those others " lied " about WMD.

---

Quote:

---

Cheney is undeniably credible on enhanced interrogation. The law has spoken on that very matter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Cheney is undeniably credible on enhanced interrogation. The law has spoken on that very matter.

---

How so? How is he "credible"? Because he ordered the enhanced interrogation? Does he have a torture background that makes him some sort of expert?




Mike

---

Quote:

---

First of all, who the hell is Cheney? Was he Commander in Chief ? Hell no, that was Bush. Where are you getting this view that CHENEY, and Cheney alone was in charge of what went on in Gitmo, and not Bush ?

---

Quote:

---

Our own Navy Seals go through water boarding, in survival training, so to call this 'torture' is a complete misnomer and mis characterization of the enhanced interrogation practices.

---

Quote:

---

where INTENT to not harm or inflict permanent damage on the individual is the goal, is perfectly legal. We do it to our own, so saying it's torture when doing it to others is a complete farce.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
kpo - if Cheney is a liar, then so are Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, George Tenet, and countless others.

So, why are you focusing in on Cheney again?



The T.Rex they call JANE!

---

Quote:

---

Seriously, man, this is bad news. Anyone who supports something you wouldn't like have done to you for some sort of security measure or technicality, you should run the feck away from. They're authoritarian sociopaths.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Jongsstraw, I just see it all, everything, all the policies, as an immense and very disquieting power grab. Doesn't matter whether the justification is the economy or national security, the end result is the same: more government control.

Corporations already have a worrisome amount of government protection, so much that I already think that the government and corporations are all really one and the same. But actually seeing the government SEIZING corporations, that just cements it all the more for me, because if they weren't the government's before, they probably are now.

The expansion of powers of the executive office of the United States, whether in the economic or national sector are a run away freight train. These are powers that will not be relinquished once granted (is a power granted if you're giving it to yourself?). We're slowly installing a totalitarian dictatorship.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


And there's no torture

if you dealt in the facts

a complete farce.

---

Quote:

---

And there's no torture, so why do you continue to misrepresent the issue in that manner ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You want me to prove it? Give me a waterboard and Dick Cheney, and within five minutes I'll have him admit that he's being tortured.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Cheney is undeniably credible on enhanced interrogation. The law has spoken on that very matter.

---

How so? How is he "credible"? Because he ordered the enhanced interrogation? Does he have a torture background that makes him some sort of expert?




Mike

---

First of all, who the hell is Cheney? Was he Commander in Chief ? Hell no, that was Bush. Where are you getting this view that CHENEY, and Cheney alone was in charge of what went on in Gitmo, and not Bush ?

Our own Navy Seals go through water boarding, in survival training, so to call this 'torture' is a complete misnomer and mis characterization of the enhanced interrogation practices.

Eric Holder, Obama's A.G., even says as much.......

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

Holder: Intent is a huge part.

Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?

Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at... ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture.

... Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, continued the “intent” line of questioning in an attempt to make some sense of the attorney general’s tortured logic.

Rep. Louie Gohmert: Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent. If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct?

Attorney General Eric Holder: No, not at all. Intent is a fact question, it’s a fact specific question.

Gohmert: So what kind of intent were you talking about?

Holder: Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act? Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person?

Gohmert: I said that in my question. The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm — there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm — knew that for sure. So, is the intent, are you saying it’s in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured. Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he’s doing harm.

Holder: The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances. That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.



. End of discussion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I said I would be checking in from time to time and posting a lot less. I leave for a week and check in today, and here Hero is, making shit up, which is pretty typical of the right-wing morons here. Maybe you should learn to read.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Does he have a torture background that makes him some sort of expert?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

And if a Gitmo person gets released somewhere in the US and kills somebody...its game over for the Democrats. Obama needs to get out of the corner and Cheney's ratings can only go up, which is what and why they are doing just that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You want me to prove it? Give me a waterboard and Dick Cheney, and within five minutes I'll have him admit that he's being tortured.

---

Mike. That is at once hi-larious and sobering.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Talk about dodge-n-weave...

So now you're playing chickenshit and refusing to answer.

Typical Republican coward.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


And there's no torture

if you dealt in the facts

a complete farce.

---

'Rap, you say there was NO torture, there WERE WMD... you talk about "facts", and make fun of those arguments you all too easily lose to on a regular basis due to your partisan hard-wiring.

You are so a dope, seriously.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You want me to prove it? Give me a waterboard and Dick Cheney, and within five minutes I'll have him admit that he's being tortured.

---

Mike. That is at once hi-larious and sobering.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Thanks, Chris - the hell of it is, if I *DO* get Cheney to admit that it's torture, will he have given an honest answer, or will he have told me what I want to hear because I'm torturing him?

Neither way works out particularly well for him.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You want me to prove it? Give me a waterboard and Dick Cheney, and within five minutes I'll have him admit that he's being tortured.

---

Mike. That is at once hi-larious and sobering.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Thanks, Chris - the hell of it is, if I *DO* get Cheney to admit that it's torture, will he have given an honest answer, or will he have told me what I want to hear because I'm torturing him?

Neither way works out particularly well for him.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

---

According to Eric Holder, if your INTENT is to torture, then it's torture. Our intent was to extract info which they had, but were unwilling to give up. And that's exactly what happened. They gave up the goods.

Lives saved.

Attacks diverted.

Dots connected

Job well done.



The T.Rex they call JANE!

---

Quote:

---

tor⋅ture
  /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Show Spelled [tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
–noun
1.the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.a method of inflicting such pain.
3.Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4.extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5.a cause of severe pain or anguish.

(dictionary.com)

Psychological punishment
A psychological punishment is a type of punishment that relies not or only in secondary order on the actual harm inflicted (such as corporal punishments or fines) but on psychological effects, mainly emotions, such as fear, shame and guilt. This can occasionally cause severe cardiac harm, even death, but those are not strictly intended, and in the case of torture accidental death would even defeat the purpose. Psychological punishments that are particularly cruel or severe may be considered psychological torture.

[.... Passage on the use of shame as psychological torture]

A strictly fear-inducing method is the mock execution, a form of 'virtual' torture. Various threats operate on the same fear-inducing principle. The use of blindfolds and the like also integrate such an element in other punishments.

[.... passage on the use of guilt and the psychological effects of indirect torture]

(reference.com)

---

Quote:

---

According to Eric Holder, if your INTENT is to torture, then it's torture. Our intent was to extract info...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
kwickie

Again, you've posted a reply with out saying a damn thing. I've asked you to cite where Cheney lied, you didn't. I gave you proof that settled the matter of whether we 'tortured' or not, you ignored that too. WTF is the point of this board if all you're going to do is act like Whozit and blurt back nonsensical, irrelevant replies that don't come close to addressing ANYTHING being discussed ?

---