Article

2005-01-07 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anon5607 2005-01-07 12:16:38 AM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Why do Democrats, socialist and wankers not understand the 1949 Geneva Accords do not apply to terrorists? The US is not part of any treatiest subsequent that would apply. It has to be willful ignorance and stupidity.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-01-07 2:26:46 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-01-07 2:26:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 SPOD, because they (the LLL) do not see them as terrorists. They're just insurgents like the msm says remember?

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-07 8:31:27 AM|| 2005-01-07 8:31:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 SPoD, I suppose you also think that Democrats, socialists and wankers did not cheat their way into the Washington governorship? There is nothing they won't do for their ~~religion~~ politics.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-07 8:34:51 AM|| 2005-01-07 8:34:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I see I am again full of good spelling. :D that should read treaties (of course.)

The Democrats ~~not~~ cheat? That would be an outrage Mr D.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-01-07 9:15:24 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-01-07 9:15:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 My wife, who, sadly, is where I was before 9/11, had a big ol' hissy fit about Gonzalez last night.

"He actually believes that those people in Guantanamo Bay are not POWs covered by the Geneva Convention!!!"

"Well, they're not."

*silence*

"You don't get the protection of the Geneva Convention unless you follow the rules of the Geneva Convention."

"But shouldn't they be protected by the Geneva Convention anyway?"

"Well sure, if you think they should be able to take their uniforms off, shoot civilians, and behead hostages without any incentive to stop."

*silence*

I don't know how much longer I can take this.

Posted by BH 2005-01-07 10:23:13 AM|| 2005-01-07 10:23:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Highlight of the day: Ted Kennedy questions him about "water torture".

Posted by tu3031 2005-01-07 10:26:06 AM|| 2005-01-07 10:26:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 tu3031: Gonzalez should have answered, "We tried to get the MA police to cover it up for us, but they were busy." ;)

Posted by BH 2005-01-07 10:30:33 AM|| 2005-01-07 10:30:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 tu - ROFL!!! Did he bring up bridges? Lol!

Posted by .com 2005-01-07 10:37:35 AM|| 2005-01-07 10:37:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Highlight of the day: Ted Kennedy questions him about "water torture".

Yeah, the irony. Like James Taranto says, "Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment."

Posted by BA 2005-01-07 10:40:04 AM|| 2005-01-07 10:40:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 tu3031: Ted Kennedy questions him about "water torture".

The Chinese water torture does not exist (and never did) - at least in the sense described - of a steady drip of water on one's head. It's as Chinese as the phrase "may you live in interesting times", et al, which is to say, quite possibly the creation of Hollywood scriptwriters for the Charlie Chan movies.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-07 11:31:35 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-07 11:31:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 hmmm - I never could figure out how to getout of those Chinese Handcuffsâ¢ - those woven tubes that constrict on your fingers as you try to pull them out....been stuck for days at a time

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-07 11:47:10 AM|| 2005-01-07 11:47:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 "Why do Democrats, socialist and wankers not understand the 1949 Geneva Accords do not apply to terrorists?"

Oh, they understand perfectly well, same as you or I; they just don't care about truth anymore. I'm no longer sure they ever did.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-01-07 11:49:00 AM|| 2005-01-07 11:49:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 The searing photographs from Abu Ghraib...

Searing pictures...the electric shock "pose" picture was disturbing, but searing? I haven't seen any searing pictures.

Why wasn't I put on the email list?

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-07 11:53:40 AM|| 2005-01-07 11:53:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 FG: I never could figure out how to getout of those Chinese Handcuffsâ¢ - those woven tubes that constrict on your fingers as you try to pull them out....been stuck for days at a time

To my knowledge, that's another one of those made-up references - the Chinese used steel manacles like everyone else.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-07 12:27:44 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-07 12:27:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 I know...I was teasing...I also know how to get out of them in a couple hours ;-)

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-07 12:33:54 PM|| 2005-01-07 12:33:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 so true, Dave D. Machiavelli would be so proud.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-07 12:35:25 PM|| 2005-01-07 12:35:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Was an....ahhhmmmaaaa... Oldsmobile used in... ahhhmmmaaa... this... ahhhhmmmaaaa...water toture?

Posted by Edward M. Kennedy 2005-01-07 12:37:57 PM|| 2005-01-07 12:37:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 My sympathy, BH. Jon Stewart's little spiel last night on the Daily Show didn't help matters any (at least not in my house). Hang tough, my dear, and remember it isn't you she's really mad at. Your life together is here, not over there, so maybe try a little romantic seduction tonight (or tomorrow, if you need a little longer to calm down), to remind you both what's really important.

Good luck. A good marriage is very much more important than differences in politics.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-07 1:17:26 PM|| 2005-01-07 1:17:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Thanks, tw. Things aren't so bad, it's just annoying. Especially when she gets around her family. Her brother, who I otherwise respect greatly, has quaffed deeply from the Mike al-Moor koolaid.

Posted by BH 2005-01-07 4:22:43 PM|| 2005-01-07 4:22:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Actually, after reading the Heather MacDonald article in City Journal, I think that, MSM hysterics aside, it's not such a bad thing for our society to finally have an open debate (such as it is) about terrorism. Sure, there'll be losts of idiocy spoken, but that's easy to shoot down, as BH showed. And we will likely emerge with something closer to consensus, and at a minimum be able to put forward our side's arguments in an open forum. Call me an optimist, but I think that's far better than being on the defensive the next time a frat-house haxing photo hits the tabloids and MSM screamsheets.

Posted by lex 2005-01-07 4:28:26 PM|| 2005-01-07 4:28:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Glad it was only a hissy fit, then, BH. Save my wise and soothing words for when someone needs them -- we're low on tumeric at this end, and I can't promise I'll ever be this clever again.

Mr. Wife, on the other hand, may wake up one night soon to find himself beaten with a frying pan... as happened to a distant cousin of his once upon a time (Mrs. Cousin was apparently committed shortly thereafter, but that's another story).

I do agree with you lex, but as someone who prefers her discussions to be on a more dispassionate level, I'm finding the process more uncomfortable than I'm comfortable with. *sigh*

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-07 9:00:55 PM|| 2005-01-07 9:00:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 BH - your B-I-L fires off a neural path for me... Anybody have any workable theories regards why people who are, otherwise, functional can go into total suspension of intellect which is required to subscribe to all the LLL conspiracy stuff? I recall a joke where, upon hearing the intro theme music for Entertainment Tonight, the cartoon character unscrews his head and places it on the nightstand, saying, "Well, I won't be needing this for the next hour." Okay, mindless "entertainment". But when did this same abdication of intellectual scrutiny and healthy skepticism start seeping into some of our major tributaries? How? Why? I am boggled - by Zen, for example. What I wouldn't give to understand how people can be seduced into such moonbattery as Gore is the rightful President, etc. What a waste.

Posted by .com 2005-01-07 9:11:28 PM|| 2005-01-07 9:11:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 "Anybody have any workable theories regards why people who are, otherwise, functional can go into total suspension of intellect which is required to subscribe to all the LLL conspiracy stuff?"

Well, this doesn't apply to all of them, for sure, but with many people it's simple ignorance: as with my LLL brother, their idea of keeping informed of current events is to plunk their lazy asses down in front of CNN for 30 minutes a day. They truly believe they're being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It doesn't occur to them that most of what they're told is dumbed-down bunk concocted to get them to vote for the nearest Democrat.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-01-07 9:40:38 PM|| 2005-01-07 9:40:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Okay - but even that (I'll swallow whatever these people tell me) is a suspension of disbelief that begs the question regards what was once called healthy skepticism... Hell the Romans institutionalized the phrase "let the buyer beware"... I accept it for some, but it still boggles, bro.

Posted by .com 2005-01-07 10:19:50 PM|| 2005-01-07 10:19:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Healthy skepticism is all but dead, PD. Most people don't have the time which skepticism demands-- or I should say they're not willing to devote the time. You and I, and likely most of the other people who frequent Rantburg, are current-events junkies: to us, keeping up with what's going on in the world, and trying to figure out what's "really" happening, is our drug of choice.

Most other people could care less. They devote a few minutes a day, at most, to current events to they end up just swallowing the pre-packaged drivel prepared for them by the liberal MSM without thinking about it very much.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-01-07 10:39:47 PM|| 2005-01-07 10:39:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Lol - you have the weight of evidence for 48% of American voters on your side, lol! That is a skeery number, too. Heavy sigh.

Posted by .com 2005-01-07 10:57:46 PM|| 2005-01-07 10:57:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Yeah, it is skeery, and I'm not at all sure we're gonna make it. I'm really not.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-01-07 10:59:25 PM|| 2005-01-07 10:59:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 How did the AARP Guadalajara article look to you, heh?

Here's one of those zines that covers the topic at length...

Posted by .com 2005-01-07 11:02:18 PM|| 2005-01-07 11:02:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Nah, I'm just gonna stand my ground, right here.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-01-07 11:13:24 PM|| 2005-01-07 11:13:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 .com, I don't get it, either. 'Twas Mr. Wife that taught me not to believe what I see, hear and read as, based on his own experience doing plant start-ups around the world (all except sub-Saharan Africa, China and Australia), US domestic news sources tell no more than the partial truth -- slanted -- and often not even that much. And yet, he believes Jon Stewart implicitly, and everything he sees on CNBC. I think it must be because he dislikes GWB's smirky fratboy attitude, as he sees it, so very much, and chooses to believe the worst of everyone associated with him. *Sigh*

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-07 11:35:06 PM|| 2005-01-07 11:35:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 So Hubby's stance is a visceral dislike? Surely Skeery didn't score well, either, there is much to feel queasy about with him... He must've been torn, Nucular MonkeyBoy vs. Lurch the Windvane. Had actions and gumption be in the equation, it would've been a no-brainer. Your patience must've been sorely tried, heh.

Posted by .com 2005-01-07 11:41:47 PM|| 2005-01-07 11:41:47 PM|| Front Page Top

04:12 diaspora every 79 years
00:15 Mike Sylwester
00:03 .com
23:57 .com
23:55 .com
23:48 nada
23:47 SR71
23:45 AJackson
23:41 .com
23:39 AJackson
23:39 trailing wife
23:37 Shipman
23:35 trailing wife
23:34 gromky
23:16 Pappy
23:15 Atomic Conspiracy
23:13 Dave D.
23:13 Silentbrick
23:02 .com
22:59 Dave D.
22:57 .com
22:52 SwissTex
22:50 2b
22:45 Barbara Skolaut