Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (65147)	5/15/2009 1:53:03 PM
From: Sedohr Nod	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

The only possible reason Fairly narrow thought pattern, wouldn't you say? Especially at this distance.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (65147)	5/15/2009 1:58:25 PM
From: TideGlider	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224729

Why would that want to waterboard a POW who was already cooperating with them by disclosing the whereabouts of others on the deck of cards? The only possible reason - to establish a political link which would help them sell the invasion of Iraq. Where did you come up with such stupid remarks?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (65147)	5/15/2009 1:59:58 PM
From: Sedohr Nod	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

I miss some of the old democrats that were willing to line germans up against the wall and shoot holes in them....not to mention fire bombing men, dogs, cats, women and children to achieve an end to a very nasty war. Without Truman and the willingness to use the BOMB(s), there are friends of mine that would probably have never been born.....Yeah, they were flawed men and politicians....but they were a far far far better bred than the democrats we have to live with today.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (65147)	5/15/2009 3:29:57 PM
From: chartseer	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Is it really that stupid? Maybe it would make more sense if he had used the word prove instead of establish. The fact had already been established, or thought to be established, now they may have been trying to prove it further. As they said people will say and admit anything under torture. So then wasn't the fact admitted to if the water boarding was indeed torture? I don't believe the fact was admitted to was it? So then if the fact wasn't admitted to then maybe water boarding isn't torture. Does any of this make sense? chartseer