War Hero McCain assured being President.Operation Chaos in full effect

[Joe Steel]

"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
news:480be816$0$7711$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

> "Bugman" <jmposing@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:NoSdnY9Q__Z1l5TVnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> Republicans don't have a problem with torture. It's a good way to get
>> the information they need. Right?
>>
>
> Okay, let me try this out. At the end, I have a question for you to
> answer. Now, since I have posted this basic question before, I wonder
> if you will answer...most people do not answer the question asked, but
> who knows, perhaps you will...I like to give people an opportunity to
> succeed. So, here goes.
>
> You have information that there is a number of people who are in this
> country, who are planning a series of massive attacks, that if
> usccessful could kill tens of thousands of people, perhaps even
> hundreds of thousands of people. You know this because he got the
> information from someone who you did not torture. But you have a
> problem. You do not know what the target cities are, you do not know
> who these people are, you do not know where they are, you do not know
> what means they are going to use, and you do not know when the attacks
> will occur. In other words you do not have some cricial bits of
> inforamtion that would help you find them and prevent the events from
> happening. You have just taken into custody someone you "think" can
> provide that critical bits of missing information. But he ain't
> talking. What would you do? Take your chances the hope that you can
> prevent the event from happening, or consider using torture to try to
> get the guy to talk? To add to the problem, you just could resort to
> torture, and he did not have the information you thought he had. You
> could resort to torture, and he gave you information which only
> increased the oddes that you will not prevent the events from
> happening. On the other hand, you "may be" able to get that critical
> bit of information you need to prevent the event from happening by the
> use of torture. Now to add to the problem you have in making such a
> decsion, you know it is against US law to resort to torture, so if you
> go down that path, you are breaking the law. What would you do?
>

Question him. Try to make a deal. Show him how providing good
information would make him better-off.

 

[ZNUYBV]

On Apr 16, 10:47 am, Joe Steel <JoeSt...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> "Johnny Boy" <trai...@vietcong.net> wrote in news:GQnNj.1972$7Z2.428
> @newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>
> > "Joe Steel" <JoeSt...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9A825C9A457BBJoeSteel@216.168.3.70...
> >> "Harry Dope" <DemocratsBetrayed...@earthlink.com> wrote in
> >>news:4805fc9c$0$4080$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
> >>> With everything being terrible because democrats say, war hero
> >>> McCain is still ahead in the polls. And when Clinton's people jump
> >>> ship to vote McCain, its all over for NObama.
>
> >> War hero?
>
> >> Why do you think McCain is a war hero; for resisting North Vietnamese
> >> "harsh interrogation" for awhile? Does that make him a "war hero?"
>
> > To Emu, any jerk who is running as a republican is a 'hero'.
>
> Oh. That explains alot.
>
> I guess it's pretty much the same for all Republicans. When their
> candidate is a draft dodger, heroism under fire doesn't matter. But when
> the guy has faced enemy fire, he's a "war hero."

It's pretty much the same for all Democrats. If you see the enemy;
turn tail and run. If Obama get in; he'll have us all doing the Bug
Out Boogie.

 

[George Grapman]

Still waiting for some evidence that Limbaugh is responsible for a
significant number of Republicans crossing over. So far all I have seen
in Limbaugh making the claim and dittoheads repeating it.

It also begs the question of why, if has so much influence within the
party, his least favorite candidate is getting the nomination.

 

[Jerry Okamura]

"Joe Steel" <JoeSteel@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A87AF7C36B5CJoeSteel@216.168.3.70...
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
> news:480be816$0$7711$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>> "Bugman" <jmposing@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:NoSdnY9Q__Z1l5TVnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> Republicans don't have a problem with torture. It's a good way to get
>>> the information they need. Right?
>>>
>>
>> Okay, let me try this out. At the end, I have a question for you to
>> answer. Now, since I have posted this basic question before, I wonder
>> if you will answer...most people do not answer the question asked, but
>> who knows, perhaps you will...I like to give people an opportunity to
>> succeed. So, here goes.
>>
>> You have information that there is a number of people who are in this
>> country, who are planning a series of massive attacks, that if
>> usccessful could kill tens of thousands of people, perhaps even
>> hundreds of thousands of people. You know this because he got the
>> information from someone who you did not torture. But you have a
>> problem. You do not know what the target cities are, you do not know
>> who these people are, you do not know where they are, you do not know
>> what means they are going to use, and you do not know when the attacks
>> will occur. In other words you do not have some cricial bits of
>> inforamtion that would help you find them and prevent the events from
>> happening. You have just taken into custody someone you "think" can
>> provide that critical bits of missing information. But he ain't
>> talking. What would you do? Take your chances the hope that you can
>> prevent the event from happening, or consider using torture to try to
>> get the guy to talk? To add to the problem, you just could resort to
>> torture, and he did not have the information you thought he had. You
>> could resort to torture, and he gave you information which only
>> increased the oddes that you will not prevent the events from
>> happening. On the other hand, you "may be" able to get that critical
>> bit of information you need to prevent the event from happening by the
>> use of torture. Now to add to the problem you have in making such a
>> decsion, you know it is against US law to resort to torture, so if you
>> go down that path, you are breaking the law. What would you do?
>>
>
> Question him. Try to make a deal. Show him how providing good
> information would make him better-off.

And if that does not work, then what would you do? Remember as you are
trying these alternatives, the clock is still ticking.....

 

[robw]

Really.

The thing I find amusing is for all of Obama's gaffes, his poll numbers in
Pa. are closer than they were a couple weeks ago.

Operation Chaos indeed!


"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:bX8Pj.7734$GE1.1822@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Still waiting for some evidence that Limbaugh is responsible for a
> significant number of Republicans crossing over. So far all I have seen
> in Limbaugh making the claim and dittoheads repeating it.
>
> It also begs the question of why, if has so much influence within the
> party, his least favorite candidate is getting the nomination.

 

[sbm2006@shaw.ca]

On Apr 21, 5:21 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "Joe Steel" <JoeSt...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9A87AF7C36B5CJoeSteel@216.168.3.70...
>
>
>
> > "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
> >news:480be816$0$7711$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
> >> "Bugman" <jmpos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:NoSdnY9Q__Z1l5TVnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> >>> Republicans don't have a problem with torture. It's a good way to get
> >>> the information they need. Right?
>
> >> Okay, let me try this out. At the end, I have a question for you to
> >> answer. Now, since I have posted this basic question before, I wonder
> >> if you will answer...most people do not answer the question asked, but
> >> who knows, perhaps you will...I like to give people an opportunity to
> >> succeed. So, here goes.
>
> >> You have information that there is a number of people who are in this
> >> country, who are planning a series of massive attacks, that if
> >> usccessful could kill tens of thousands of people, perhaps even
> >> hundreds of thousands of people. You know this because he got the
> >> information from someone who you did not torture. But you have a
> >> problem. You do not know what the target cities are, you do not know
> >> who these people are, you do not know where they are, you do not know
> >> what means they are going to use, and you do not know when the attacks
> >> will occur. In other words you do not have some cricial bits of
> >> inforamtion that would help you find them and prevent the events from
> >> happening. You have just taken into custody someone you "think" can
> >> provide that critical bits of missing information. But he ain't
> >> talking. What would you do? Take your chances the hope that you can
> >> prevent the event from happening, or consider using torture to try to
> >> get the guy to talk? To add to the problem, you just could resort to
> >> torture, and he did not have the information you thought he had. You
> >> could resort to torture, and he gave you information which only
> >> increased the oddes that you will not prevent the events from
> >> happening. On the other hand, you "may be" able to get that critical
> >> bit of information you need to prevent the event from happening by the
> >> use of torture. Now to add to the problem you have in making such a
> >> decsion, you know it is against US law to resort to torture, so if you
> >> go down that path, you are breaking the law. What would you do?
>
> > Question him. Try to make a deal. Show him how providing good
> > information would make him better-off.
>
> And if that does not work, then what would you do? Remember as you are
> trying these alternatives, the clock is still ticking.....

What if you torture him, he gives you some bullshit story just to stop
the pain, and while you're chasing it down, BOOM?