Did the CBO use numbers separate from Bush's budgets? I don't think so. You citing of this refutes nothing major has said. If you would like to refute it, please cite some evidence. Otherwise Major's point stands. Bush purposefully omitted Iraq and Afghanistan costs from his budget and only added them in later as supplemental spending.
I see that we are off the reservation of fiscal policy due to excessive fail. Here we go... I don't know if they would, which is why I very wrote that the grounds for their reversal would be premised on "non-fiscal reasons" Sure, waterboarding is torture and is illegal under US law. It was the policy that was in place and enforced during the Bush era -obviously congress sets this policy, but unlike Obama, Bush never showed any signs of attempting to end it. Whether or not DADT ends of course depends on if the Party of No wants it to be. Or until after we say goodbye to the filibuster.
well, noted Obama military advisor Merril McPeak doesn't want to end DADT, so i'm not optimistic the party of D'Oh! will repeal the law either. please show where waterboarding has been deemed torture under US law. MGIA.
Phase 1: Ignore your side's own argument - Pick a tangential figure to other side, make unsupported allegation Phase 2: ???? Phase 3: Profits It has been recognized as a criminal activity for over 50 years, and prosecuted under the laws prohibiting torture. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_pf.html /tangent /thread
Objection, lack of relevance. Doesn't change the issue of what's included and not included in the annual budget. But, since you at least did give the source a cursory look, you might have benefited by looking at the breakdowns that resulted in the higher deficit. For example, from 2007 to 2009, you had: Discretionary spending: +$200 billion Mandatory spending: +$650 billion Revenues: -$450 billion Now, using whatever little interpretative skills you have, think about what the implications of those numbers is.
nice try, except those cases involved multiple acts of torture, and waterboarding. nowhere in the article you linked did it say that waterboarding was illegal when used in a military interrogation.
Why do you think this man then was convicted of using illegal water boarding as torture during a miitary interrogation in 1968? http://waterboarding.org/node/19 Your post to fail ratio in this thread is real high. Anything else you want to talk about? Maybe pontificate a bit more on Citizens United - let's go for the alltime record.
he was court-marshaled. if your supposition is correct, why haven't there been indictments, much less trials, and those who waterboarded KSM?
And the court-martial convicted him for his criminal activities. YOu know the answer to this. many reasons, political and legal. The absence of a criminal verdict, howewver, doesn't mean that something is legal. That's why the DOJ now correctly interprets waterboarding as illegal (and why GWB belatedly recognized the same)
fixed. where did W recognize this? surely Holder and Obama, who are committed to the highest standards of ethics and law, would prosecute the evil doers?
...no, actually you just broke it. He went before a military court, was indicted on charges of committing a crime in violation of the UCMJ via waterboarding, and convicted of that crime. That is what occurred in 1968. Plain and simple. When he basically stopped listening to Cheney in his second term, which is why nobody else was illegally tortured after 2003.
can you please highlight the statute he was convicted of violating, and where in said statute the word waterboarding is mentioned? TTIA.
Find article. Bold random/slanted/inaccurate thoughts/ideas/lies. Summarize article irrationally. Repeat in D&D 5 times per day.
Why should I bother? We all know how it will end. You're up to two pages and you haven't really made a single accurate statement or a cogent argument yet - as we all know, this is why your threads are treated in the same way. It's remarkable that you allow this to happen, since you put much thought and tactics in your posting strategy here, what with your drafting sessions and your 7 AM D&D pregame sessions, that you are unable to present a single cogent argument or that you throw it all out the window to go full ass-clown when things start going wrong...which is generally the moment you hit "submit"
thanks- i think we do all know how it will end, which is why you're refraining from citing the statute.
If I did cite it, what would you do? Would you apologize to us? Would you admit that you were rendered my b**** on the internets? If you do both of those two things, I will provide you with the sections of the UCMJ that illegal torture like waterboarding violates. I get my b****, you get your statute. Everybody is happy.
i did not ask for the "sections of the UCMJ." i asked for the statute. more over, i did ask you to show where "llegal torture like waterboarding" to be contained therein, but rather where said statute says that waterboarding is specifically prohibited, and identified as torture. i think we all know how this request will end.