Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Free For All

I have not done this in awhile. Post whatever you want...lets get a lot of comments this time.

Posted by The Game at 8:24 PM

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

You never told me who won the game vs. Riverside. Score?

September 27, 2006 5:29 AM
PCD said...

Legislation I'd like to see proposed and passed.

From the Democrats:
1. A bill to cut and run from the war on terror, but with a guarantee with their lives that the US will not suffer any more attacks were Americans are killed. Thus, if Al Queda bombs another ship, plane or anything else in the world were Americans were the target, the representatives, senators, the President signing the bill, their advisors and staffs would be subject to be killed without legal sanction on their killers. Call it a modern day application of the Code of Hamurabi or Robert Heinlein's "Balancing".

Real Social Security Reform in which the Politicians and Federal Civil Service also has to participate and depend on.

From the Republicans:

Real Border Security and Immigration Reform.

Real Voting Rights and Ballot Box Security.

September 27, 2006 7:28 AM
Dedanna said...

Thank you for doing this Game. I appreciate it.

Problem is, now I forgot what I was going to post. :(

I'll cruise the posts I've made recently here, see if I can remember it --

September 27, 2006 9:46 AM
The Game said...

riverside won 28-12...
it was 13-12 in the 4th, bay view fummbled on the 2 and riverside ran it back for a 98 yard TD...very muddy field

September 27, 2006 10:07 AM
PCD said...

Personally, I'd like to see ANY politician confronted if he starts talking about "Green" or Bio-fuels. Here in Iowa, most of them don't know what the H*** they are talking about.

E85 should be a simple enough subject for them to grasp. The EPA is doing its best to scare away companies from making conversion kits for older, say older than 2000, vehicles.

1979 and up vehicles can run E10, commonly called Gasohol or Ethanol.

The governor is behind a push to get the EPA to legalize a kit a company wants to sell in the us. That kit mainly changes the pulse width of your fuel injector cycle. It does nothing to allay the concerns of long term use of E85 in a non-flex fuel vehicle.

Now, the Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln took a Chevy pickup with a LM7 engine, converted it to a LS1 engine that uses E85 full time.

I say that the EPA should post on their website not only their scare memo about E85 conversion and sending people to jail who do it, a memo on the long term effects and detriments of using E85 in older engines.

Hot Rod and Car Craft magazines have addressed the subject of using E85 in various articals, but have not come up with an all encompassing article.

September 27, 2006 10:10 AM
PCD said...

Small correction/addition to previous post. It is the governor of Minnesota, not the governors of Iowa or Wisconsin pushing for EPA acceptance of this E85 conversion kit.

I'll say the governors of Wisconsin and Iowa are more into lawsuits to "solve" problems than actually solving them.

September 27, 2006 10:13 AM
Dedanna said...

I remembered what it was Game, but think you may have seen it at another blog. At the time, I thought you might be interested to see this, but as I said, I think you may have already.

September 27, 2006 10:19 AM
Anonymous said...

Scorpion say---
Hey Rhyno! Riverside plays Bradley Tech Saturday at noon. Game
is at Shorewood Field. This game will determine who is in control for the conference championship. If
yoy want to see good Football instead of what plays on Sundays, give it a shot. Maybe you can try to mug an old BOOMER,at the same time.High School football--try it.

September 27, 2006 10:23 AM
PCD said...

Game,

Is this thread your way of proving the left is not only bankrupt of Ideas, but without talking points, they have noting to say?

September 27, 2006 12:46 PM
Dedanna said...

No, it's what it says -- a free for all. It's whatever one wants to post.

Something yours truly requested.

Can't you read?

September 27, 2006 1:13 PM
PCD said...

I read fine Dedanna. Can you? Can you see beyone your arrogance and self-importance?

September 27, 2006 1:25 PM
PCD said...

Other than wanting to keep retired citizens in the grip of the Federal Government, why do liberals insist that he Ponzi scheme called Social Security never be a true retirement system where the participant owns their account and can have some investment options with THEIR money?

Don't give me crap about catering to Wall Street. Where do the UNIONS put their pension funds besides in Mob pockets????

September 27, 2006 2:07 PM
PCD said...

Just to set the record straight after the Democrats lied again. Larry Sabato did not hear George Allen use the N word himself. This is hearsay being trumpeted as fact just like the Rather/Mapes faked documents just before the 04 election. Jere's a link for the honest of intellect to read and the hacks to ignore: http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/09/27/sabato-clarifies-remarks-confusion-spreads-on-allens-alleged-use-of-the-n-word/

Ask yourself, are the Democrats and the biased press so insecure that this is the only way they have a chance at winning elections? Where are their famed ethics and ideas? Are they all just pot dreams?

September 27, 2006 8:46 PM
PCD said...

oh, and before Jim and Ron try to spin the NIE and PDB thing again, Sister Toldjah has the links debunking the hacks before they get off a keystroke.

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/09/27/the-president-was-right-the-nie-document-was-leaked-for-political-purposes/

September 27, 2006 8:49 PM
Jim said...

Question for the panel:

Should it be legal for any person under the control of the United States to be subjected to waterboarding?

September 27, 2006 10:01 PM
The Game said...

jim, I always figured the govt did naughty things to bad people it was trying to get info out of...I just didn't want people to talk about it and put it in the newspaper

September 27, 2006 10:04 PM
Jim said...

Of course they do. But that doesn't answer the question. Should it be legal?

September 27, 2006 11:31 PM
Marshal Art said...

I understand waterboarding to be non-lethal. If this is true, then use it on the scumbags if necessary.

The problem I see with the torture debate is not only is torture a subjective term, but there seems to be a perspective that insists that all of our interrogators are just itching to torture somebody. I don't know where this attitude about fellow Americans comes from, but it's troubling. If a subject is believed to have info, the intensity of the interrogation techniques must rise with the importance of the info sought. I've read of one possible technique that has to do with altering the diets to alter the mood of the subject. There's nothing about it that is threatening to the life or long term health of the subject, but it messes with his state of mind or state of emotion and it somehow makes the subject more pliable. In any case, it sounded like a great idea, but what would the left say? Would that be "humiliating", or an affront to the subject's "dignity"? Who cares? What would anyone care?

I would also wonder just how much actual "torture" was going on before the left interfered. By this I mean torture of the kind that leaps to mind at the mention of the word "torture". For me, the first thing I would think of is bamboo shoots under the fingernails. I don't know if that was ever actually done, but it's the kind of thing I think of at the mention of the word "torture". The rack also springs to mind. Cutting off small portions of the subject's anatomy until info is had. These are barbaric and heinous techniques, but is the level of horror that seems to be a common notion or example of the word "torture".

But lesser things can be torturous (sp), like simply being bound for extended periods, being denied sleep, bright lights in the face during questioning. I can't think of anything that wouldn't be humiliating or an affront to my personal dignity by being interrogated while accused of a crime. Merely being accused would do it for me.

The point is, that there is way too much ambiguity in the debate surrounding torture and I believe it is so on purpose. If a red flag is to be thrown up regarding interrogation techniques, if we are to alert our enemies that nasty things will be taken off the table thereby lessening their fear of being caught and questioned, then a firm and detailed description of which techniques are allowed and which are not for the benefit of those given the task of interrogating those who want us dead.

Damn. What I really wanted to talk about was hot babes.

September 28, 2006 12:18 AM
Ron said...

I know I am going to be called a wimpy liberal for saying this but I honestly don't think torture works. Think about people you know or are at odds with. Do you get more by beating the shit out of them or by other methods? How about your kids. Are they going to tell you more if you have a good working relationship with them or if you beat them to find out stuff? Find a reason to make them want to aid you. I know it isn't easy but that is why life is a challenge. They winners are more creative.
No this won't always work and harsher methods may occasionally be needed but as a rule we should not be seen as brutal. If we are they will say we may as well die as surrender. If they feel like they may at least get treated like a human they may think again about possibly surrendering. Again not all of them but human nature says many will. As a matter of fact it proved true in our last war with Iraq. They knew that they could surrender so they did. In droves.

September 28, 2006 5:48 AM
Ron said...

Marshall..as far as hot babes..Google Cori Nadine..my favorite!!!:-)

September 28, 2006 5:49 AM
Anonymous said...

Isnt cori nadine getting a littel old, ron? :)

I would love to see that game, scorp, but I have reunion festivities all weekend.

September 28, 2006 7:41 AM
PCD said...

Warerboarding is legal.

you libs don't know what torture is. You fools think participating in a drunken Kennedy party against your will is torture.

First, you base assumptions are ALL wrong. Terrorits are not protected under the Geneva Conventions. Second, the Terrorists have not signed the Geneva Conventions.

ron, compares apples to oranges. The Iraqis who surrendered in mass during the first Gulf War were pummeled into submission by constant airstrikes that appeaser and wimps like you couldn't stop. Second, they were not fighting for a warped imaga of Allah, but conscripted to fight for the glory of Saddam.

September 28, 2006 7:49 AM
PCD said...

Oh, for the arrogant would be kings of the left, I didn't expect you to address my first idea. Your caucus to too dishonest, except for Charlie Rangel, to admit you want to cut and run. You also would have to admit that you demand perfection of those non-liberals in power while issuing a pass to Libs in power.

I just highlighted the point you have nothing but wimpy words and cowardice for a platform. If you really believed that withdrawing the military from the world, allowing Israel to be destroyed, and capitulating to the Islamofascists would end terrorism, you'd have no fear of the consequence of you being destroyed for being wrong.

September 28, 2006 8:01 AM
jhbowden said...

"You fools think participating in a drunken Kennedy party against your will is torture."

LOL! Coming within five feet of Fat Bastard should be prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. That is cruel, and that is unusual.

September 28, 2006 8:23 AM
PCD said...

James,

I use, "Old Sot", to designate that particular piece of Kennedy trash. Have to put up with Old Sot and his frat boy son coming to Dubuque to look for Union Goons every couple of years. Funny how the locals do not let this Kennedy trash alone with their women or behind the wheel of a car when they visit. We do have bridges like the one Old Sot drove off of.

September 28, 2006 8:44 AM
PCD said...

Game,

I hope you are still peeking in here. How about reading this article and posting what you think?

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/09/27/aclu-a-legacy-of-hypocrisy/

September 28, 2006 9:07 AM
Dedanna said...

pcd said...

I read fine Dedanna. Can you? Can you see beyone your arrogance and self-importance?

Game, would you like to please explain to this douchebag how wrong he is, where this thread was requested by yours truly and why, or shall I? I was just stating a fact, that I had requested a Free For All thread, it had nothing to do with arrogance or self-importance, but rather a desire to share something cool with you.

Thanks.

September 28, 2006 11:52 AM
Mr. Buzzcut said...

Augh ... Twins are losing to the shitty Royals AGAIN!

September 28, 2006 8:18 PM
Marshal Art said...

Ron,

I think you've summed up the problem in how this issue is perceived by saying torture should be a last resort. Anything that might resemble torture IS already used only when other methods have been exhausted. We DO want to be seen as a kind nation, and therefor have taken steps to prove we are, such as the lengths our troops go to avoid civilian casualties, and the conditions under which the average prisoner is treated. I'd wager any resident of a state penitentiary would love to trade places with the Gitmo gang.

But the issue is only what is done to extract info from those who are suspected of having important intel and aren't forthcoming. What lengths will we stretch to in order to obtain it. If the suspicion is that the subject has info and not getting it would put soldiers or civilians at risk, and time is of the essence, what you now have is a person who, by his silence, is an active participant in the murder of Americans or allies. It makes no sense to sacrifice those Americans or allies to prevent harming the scumbag murderer. To the enemy, this will not be perceived in the manner for which you hope, but instead will encourage them with the knowledge that even the deaths of our own people won't make us do what is necessary to win. Keep in mind that this is an enemy that is capable of hacking off the head of a living hostage. Why would he not react as I've described considering their own desire to win.

So now the left has raised this issue of torture and have railed against it as if they are standing tall for human rights, when in fact it is to undermine the Bush policies. If human rights, compassion, kindness and all that were the true motivation, I would encourage the left to explain that to the families of those killed by scumbags who were treated far better than their actions would indicate they deserve.

So now, the need for torture exists where previously it most likely didn't. In other words, now that the issue has been raised, the enemy is emboldened, and the lips of the captured will be tighter, because they know that our guys will be less likely to play rough during interrogations. Before the issue was raised, the enemey didn't know WHAT we would do, what we are capable of, and the fear of torture was implicit without having to use it. Before they might have thought we might torture, and now they know we'll try to avoid it. Torture was never a real issue, even if it happened on occasion. Insisting that our laws forbid it, plays into the hands of our enemies.

September 28, 2006 9:00 PM
Marshal Art said...

To clarify, my use of the word "torture" was not to say that I think our guys torture anyone as a matter of routine or policy. I use it because any aggressive technique might be considered torture by the left and because the term has never been strictly defined by the left. As far as I can tell, anything beyond asking a question politely is considered torture by some elements of the left.

September 28, 2006 9:06 PM
Jim said...

Marshall, why is torture needed now when it wasn't previously? Are the "evil-doers" somehow super-human in their ability to resist interrogation techniques? Where do they breed them?

What you all are missing about this is that the real deal here is not about torture. It's about presidential power. They want it all and they want it now.

You can be sure that any kind of technique they felt was necessary was being used in the secret prisons around the world. They could do anything they wanted and gotten any kind of information they could get out of them. Could have cut out their eyes, anything. Nobody would have been the wiser. The existence of these prisons and our prisoners being there have been known for a year or more. So what's the deal?

The deal is that they moved these guys to Guantanamo so they would be under the direct control of the United States, so they would be "visible" and so that what was done to them would become an issue. All of a sudden they have to redefine the Geneva Conventions. They had to have a clear definition of what could be done so that the interrogators could do it without prosecution.

They did all this to force the issue for the election. They also played this little charade with McCain, Warner, and Graham. These three totally caved.

The result is, the president has TOTAL control over what techniques can be used. No congressional oversight, no judicial oversight.

And that's not necessarily the worst or it. The president can designate ANYONE and "enemy combatant", and can then deny said person habeas corpus. That means that person cannot challenge his incarceration, can not mount a defense, and can be held without trial FOREVER. No congressional oversight, no judicial oversight.

It's all the power of the president.

You want that power in the hands of President Rodham Clinton?

If this goes through as currently written, they have won.

September 29, 2006 12:10 AM
Marshal Art said...

Well, I hope they win, Jim, because I don't believe you've got it down. Your leaders are screaming about ultimate power, and Bush is talking about having the tools to fight this unique war. Your leaders talk about redefining the Geneva Convention, and Bush talks about clarification of ambiguous portions under which others could call anything torture and sue over it. And your side suffers under the presumption that what is put in place today cannot be changed, altered or eliminated tomorrow. As fearful as I am of having any of the elected fools from the Dem party come to power, I really don't think any of them are going to up and incarcerate innocent Americans by calling them enemy combatants and holding them indefinitely under torture and without legal representation. Why anyone fears such from Bush and the gang is beyond me.

Also, my point about needing torture more now than before was that the fear of torture was enough before, even if it was never used. But now, with all the nonsense from the left, the enemy knows that such things are less likely. It's irrelevant whether or not there even was anyone being tortured. But the scumbags, who engage in all sorts of nastiness, could logically assume that everyone else does, at least when no one's looking. I don't know any other way to say it except that the left has removed all doubt as to whether we will use torture (whatever the hell that means), and now have less to fear from being captured. They know that they can endure anything we throw at them because there is a limit. In fact, it's the same downside as having a date for withdrawing the troops. The suffering is now finite, there's an end to it, we can learn to steel ourselves better because we know we only have to last through shouting or name calling but not anything more painful than that.

September 29, 2006 12:37 AM
Jim said...

Why should anybody trust Bush? He is incompetent and a liar.

Fist they denied there were secret prisons overseas. Then we find out they are. First they denied that torture is being used, then he brings these people to Gitmo and says we can not longer interrogate them for fear of prosecution. That's an admission that torure was being used.

They've lied, they've misled, they've screwed up, they've made amazingly bad strategy decisions.

And you want me to trust them? No way!

September 29, 2006 6:04 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)