Back at ya! :D

And all of that stuff is also considered torture.

Excuse me? You KNOW I'm a victim because I haven't followed YOUR LOGIC? Are you kidding me? I would hardly say John Dean is not a critical thinker, nor many of the other people who have written books about Bush (Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Kevin Phillips, etc.), or spoken out against him, many of them fellow republicans.

Why do you defend him so much? I believe he was a terrible president, and I believe he broke laws in order to serve himself. I just hope he is one day held accountable for what he's done.

There is only one logic /Spock

So how does that justify spying on ordinary Americans who are not thought to be "in league" with the enemy? Because according to a lot of information out there, they didn't just intercept enemy communications, or communications of suspicious people. Don't you want to know how far bush et. al. went in their spy games? I know I do. When we just allow our government to do whatever they want, because they say they are keeping us safe, we give up our freedom, in when we do that, we no longer deserve it. I do not think we should ever just take a politician at his word, especially when they have proven to be untrustworthy, which Bush has, over and over and over again my friend.

Well that may be YOUR position, but is that the lawful position? It bears investigation. Again, when we allow our government to do whatever they want, because they say it is in our best interest, and they are just keeping us safe, we lose our freedom. That is MY opinion. :p

Oh, and thanks for the apology.

One day I woke up to find that nearly everybody decides what they believe by picking a side or a group or a clique and sticking to it relentlessly. In this view of the world, sides are "defended", where each side trots out its narrative of the world and we are urged to pick one size to fit all.

I don't care about any of that nonsense, I just try to figure out the truth. I'm as scientific as I can be, trying to recall and research actual facts and real, direct information, and trying to understand context as much as is possible for any one simpleton like myself. I find picking sides means you are dragged away from truth as you consume your favorite version of reality.

FWIW I didn't vote for Bush and for the last two elections I have voted straight D.

Congress did not declare war in the constitutional sense of issuing a war powers resolution or declaration of war.

They took a lesser step...an Authorization for Use of Military Force

Does an AUMF = a Constitutional (Authorized) Declaration of War?

It certainly doesnt look to me like that an AUMF has the same broad authority...but I'm not a constitutional lawyer.

IMO, the precedent is dangerous.

And it screams for the judiciary to make a judgement...not the past, present or future presidents.

What a frigging apologist.

OK. Thanks for clarifying that. But since so many serious allegations have surfaced over the past 6 years, don't you think we should investigate and find out what the truth really is? and IF any laws have been broken, do you not think people should be held accountable and tried for their crimes? (notice I did say IF they were guilty...)

and ftr, I almost always vote independent. I HATE the 2 party system.

huh? Why would you say that?

Because he acts as if the Demoncrats had no part in it. Fuck that. Dress up your pig.

Undertoad...your position appears to be pretty much in line with the DoJ attorneys who wrote the "torture" memos, but not in line with the DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility who suggest that they may have been politically motivated.

I have no argument with those holding your position..other than, IMO, it should be resolved by an independent third party before it is codified into law or a precedent as an acceptable practice.

Why should the benefit of doubt be given to one side or the other?

The DoJ attorneys in question should absolutely have the right to include their side in the report.

But, IMO, again, the issue should ultimately be resolved by the judiciary so that clear legal standards are in place for the future.

As soon as the Vince Foster case is closed, and we know for certain that Bill Clinton wasn't running cocaine deals as Governor, and that Obama is a US citizen legal to be President, sure.

Allegations are easy -- just throw shit until it sticks. People love throwing shit -- people love to be in the game, getting attention, running plays for their side and feeling important. You got an unpopular Pres, more shit will be thrown and more will stick. Pretty soon you believe a lot of shit, and are calling for a Whitewater investigation, and when you don't find any real shit, you turn to prosecuting blowjobs.

Former Sen. Fritz Hollings at HuffPost: Why Are We in Afghanistan? Right in the middle of his piece...

Wheeeeeeeeee

I'm not sure how a DoJ internal investigation of the Bush DoJ questionable "torture" memos by the Bush DoJ is "throwing shit" rather than the DoJ OPR and IG carrying out their legislatively mandated responsibilities.

Rut row. Obama may want to rethink sending those 17,000 toops.

OK, so we should forget everything everyone has said, and go about our merry business, because the republicans mishandled an investigation and kept it going for years, when it should have been dropped? I'm sick of the corruption in Washington, and I want something done about it. I'm sorry to hear you don't. I don't like powerful (or rich) people getting away with stuff simply because they are powerful (or rich). That is not what our system of government is supposed to be about.

Especially since Cheney has admitted on TV that they waterboarded people...

Why don't you like the democrats? :D

You hate everyone in Hollywood too? Geez and I thought they were your brethren. :rolleyes:

No. And I don't hate all poweful/rich people. Only the ones who are corrupt and unethical and step on those less fortunate in order to gain more for themselves.

:rolleyes:

Zinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng.... :p

You know, Hollywood gets a really bad rap. I worked in the industry for years. A lot of the people you love to hate are really good people who actually walk their talk.

Who cares, those rich people out there need to pay their fair share, not walk down red carpets while people get laid off. Screw Hollywood and those rich people in their big houses. :D

I don't like them using their celebrity for political purposes.

Why not?

They are mini corps you so love to hate. The rich!

I don't hate rich people.

I'd like to be one some day. lol

Why? What makes their opinion any more valid than anyone elses? Why should they get to be on TV espousing their political points when the average person whose points are just as valid cannot?
Why should Sean Penn be allowed to go off at the award ceremony about his feelings regarding same sex marriage?

Hollywood doesn't pay bonuses. They pay backend percentages on PROFITS. In other words, if the movie makes money, people make more than their salary. If it doesn't, they don't. Isn't that how bonuses are supposed to work? Most actors are very public about their beliefs that they should be paying higher taxes (at least the democrats do). They really mean it.

As far as under the line people being laid off while above the line people make more money, I have been ranting about THAT for YEARS, and you know that about me.

It's not that he's allowed to. It's that he has the opportunity to.

The thing to consider is that he's not the only one to have those views, so he's speaking on behalf of all the others who don't have the same opportunity to do so.

That's why celebrities are able to get away with it.

What makes their opinion any LESS valid? If you were well-known, wouldn't you want to use your voice to support things or causes you believe in? I know I would...

And ftr, Sean Penn did that because the ROLE he won the award for was that of a gay man who was murdered. The things he said were very relevant.

I would just add, the Academy Awards, while watched by the world, are INDUSTRY AWARDS. There is no reason why he shouldn't have made the speech he made.

There is no reason why he should have.

Well they have to talk about something. What's wrong with talking about the theme of the movie?

We call them royalties.

Same thing. Makes more sense than paying bonuses to people when the company is going down in flames...

Nothing - keep it to that - all of them. I used him as the latest example and perhaps a poor one. Oh well.
Take the award say thank and go away. I don't think its right for them to use that setting to espouse their political beliefs. Put it on a blog.

That would be akin to me talking politics to every client I speak to, or when someone calls in for IT help, or the pizza delivery guy or your auto mechanic...

You and the pizza guy and the mechanic can talk politics, or whatever, but you risk losing your customer. So do actors.

They live in a fantasy world 99.99999% of us can only dream of.
Whatevah.

I wouldn't pay money to go see a Tom Cruise movie.

One reason he should have is that he wanted to. What is the reason he shouldn't have?

If someone ends up with an audience, I applaud any efforts on their part to say something important, even at the risk of losing some people from their fanbase. If you don't want celebrities to say anything meaningful, why listen to them talk? And if you don't listen to them talk, why care about whether they're saying anything meaningful?

okie dokie - mums the word.

1) Because he has the right to defined by the Constitution and as an honorary member of the Academy.
2) Because he has further earned the right to by his accomplishments and respect of his peers.
3) Because that is the principle behind the movie.
4) Because his opinions have more validity than yours.
5) Because he is doing what is his job - promoting the movie.
5) Because far more people are interested in his opinions and few are interested in yours.
6) Because if you don't like it, then you could have changed the channel.
7) Because principles that make America great were defined in his speech.
8) Because those who promote hate would so dislike his comments as to divulge the hate that they champion.

Just a few reasons that justify his comments.

Well I think you might have had about half right there tw.

Anyone reason completely justifies his comments. Meanwhile, criticizing without reasons why state that you really cannot disagree but choose to anyway.

You have a problem with any one? Then say why or waste bandwidth. Which one is wrong ... and why?

Well 4 and the second 5 weren't very valid. Just gratuitous insults on your behalf really.

Yeah yeah, I'm sure there was no emotion involved on your part. If so, stop making emotive comments.

You would have had a much better post without that BS in there.

Well isn't that special? Looks like Tommy gets an F in math this week. Cannot even count to 7 correctly.

Oh and I think the bold ones would be proof that you are attacking the poster and not the post. Something we all know only a wacko extremist like tw would do.

He was just one example and whether I agree or disagree with his opinions is irrelevant. The overall point was of the argument, as usual, missed by tw - again.

number two five. ;)

Because if you don't like it, then you could have changed the channel.

Ratings were up for the first time in years. The trend is that people have been tuning away from it.

No, it isn't really the same thing at all. It is an award show for industry people. While it may be broadcast to the masses, it is still an industry show awarding excellence in that industry. And most of the people in that industry happen to support gay rights, which is partly what the movie was about. See the difference? ;)

Not really - If it weren't for the tv ad revenue the awards, I don't think they would even exist.

Of course they would. Most industries have events like this where they honor their "stars" or best producers, best workers, etc. The reason why they broadcast it is because it is the entertainment industry, and a lot of people want to see it, because to them it is entertainment. They want to see stars. (And of course, it helps promote their product.)

Hollywood: "We, the correct-thinking people of Hollywood, are ready to meet with your cultural elites on a completely private initiative for educational and creative exchange and with no political agenda."

Iran: "Fuck you."

UT that is hairlarious. :lol2:

:notworthy

Which proves that all Americans also want to nuke Iran because Cheney said so. Amazing how wackos become the opinion of all others.

Next paragraph will tell us how god is on our side.

Don't all religious people think God is on "their" side?

You mean he isn't. Shit! then I'm really fooked.

Ia! Ia! Cthulhu F'thagn, P'nglui M'wagalnath R'lyeh... Ia! Ia! Shub-Niggurath!