The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..8..13..18..23..27~28~29~30~31..44~45~46 [Next]
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, The Hermit wrote:
I lived through Carter. He was a stumbling clusterf@@k without a vision that could be articulated. Rankings will always change over time. To say that Carter was better than George W. is a little hard to swallow. Depends on ranking criteria. A President should inspire and lead with a vision - what all good CEOs do. Reagan had that and was an incredible counterpoint to Carter in that regard. Obama does not have an articulate vision or one he doesn't want to articulate. Teddy had one, Franklin had one. Some driven by necessity, some by ideas of making things better. Like they say 'Some people become president to be somebody, some become president to do something'. Obama seems to be in the 'be somebody' club. If we look at standard of living and how people feel about our country presently, then Obama is losing. The US is the strongest country in the world militarily and will remain that way for a long time. We control the air and sea. We are not behind in the things that count. Everyone else in the world knows that. Obama and almost no President will change that. However, how the country feels about itself and where we are going does reside at the President's door. According to all the polls, he's losing on that too.


At least Carter never fabricated evidence to invade an independent nation.




A new priest was asked to preside over a funeral service for a man he'd never met. Rather than offer generalizations, he invites any of the attendees to come up and share some nice thoughts about the departed. There's a little grumbling, and nobody steps forward. The priest goes from asking to practically begging. Surely SOMEONE has SOMETHING to share. Finally, one old guy gets up, hesitantly, and looks to his wife, who nods her encouragement. He shuffles to the podium, and the relieved priest hands him the microphone. The old man clears his throat, and with a sour expression says, "His brother was worse."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20586 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, The Hermit wrote:
I lived through Carter. He was a stumbling clusterf@@k without a vision that could be articulated. Rankings will always change over time. To say that Carter was better than George W. is a little hard to swallow. Depends on ranking criteria. A President should inspire and lead with a vision - what all good CEOs do. Reagan had that and was an incredible counterpoint to Carter in that regard. Obama does not have an articulate vision or one he doesn't want to articulate. Teddy had one, Franklin had one. Some driven by necessity, some by ideas of making things better. Like they say 'Some people become president to be somebody, some become president to do something'. Obama seems to be in the 'be somebody' club. If we look at standard of living and how people feel about our country presently, then Obama is losing. The US is the strongest country in the world militarily and will remain that way for a long time. We control the air and sea. We are not behind in the things that count. Everyone else in the world knows that. Obama and almost no President will change that. However, how the country feels about itself and where we are going does reside at the President's door. According to all the polls, he's losing on that too.


At least Carter never fabricated evidence to invade an independent nation.

Yes Kerry and Hillary Clinton fabricated the info. Are we still going to claim this?

Why is it liberal records can't just stand on their own? The answer would be to exalt Carters record not to beat a constant drum beat of we are not as bad. This tactic alone says a lot.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
The answer would be to exalt Carters record...



Let's try to keep it realistic.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
RNK
View Profile
Inner circle
6581 Posts

Profile of RNK
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, The Hermit wrote:
I lived through Carter. He was a stumbling clusterf@@k without a vision that could be articulated. Rankings will always change over time. To say that Carter was better than George W. is a little hard to swallow. Depends on ranking criteria. A President should inspire and lead with a vision - what all good CEOs do. Reagan had that and was an incredible counterpoint to Carter in that regard. Obama does not have an articulate vision or one he doesn't want to articulate. Teddy had one, Franklin had one. Some driven by necessity, some by ideas of making things better. Like they say 'Some people become president to be somebody, some become president to do something'. Obama seems to be in the 'be somebody' club. If we look at standard of living and how people feel about our country presently, then Obama is losing. The US is the strongest country in the world militarily and will remain that way for a long time. We control the air and sea. We are not behind in the things that count. Everyone else in the world knows that. Obama and almost no President will change that. However, how the country feels about itself and where we are going does reside at the President's door. According to all the polls, he's losing on that too.


Very well stated Hermit. But what you said makes sense so it won't be acceptable to the libs. Even though you WERE there and LIVED through it- still doesn't matter.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, The Hermit wrote:
I lived through Carter. He was a stumbling clusterf@@k without a vision that could be articulated. Rankings will always change over time. To say that Carter was better than George W. is a little hard to swallow. Depends on ranking criteria. A President should inspire and lead with a vision - what all good CEOs do. Reagan had that and was an incredible counterpoint to Carter in that regard. Obama does not have an articulate vision or one he doesn't want to articulate. Teddy had one, Franklin had one. Some driven by necessity, some by ideas of making things better. Like they say 'Some people become president to be somebody, some become president to do something'. Obama seems to be in the 'be somebody' club. If we look at standard of living and how people feel about our country presently, then Obama is losing. The US is the strongest country in the world militarily and will remain that way for a long time. We control the air and sea. We are not behind in the things that count. Everyone else in the world knows that. Obama and almost no President will change that. However, how the country feels about itself and where we are going does reside at the President's door. According to all the polls, he's losing on that too.


At least Carter never fabricated evidence to invade an independent nation.

Yes Kerry and Hillary Clinton fabricated the info. Are we still going to claim this?

Why is it liberal records can't just stand on their own? The answer would be to exalt Carters record not to beat a constant drum beat of we are not as bad. This tactic alone says a lot.


thehermit compared Carter and Bush. I replied with a difference between Carter and Bush. What in the world to Kerry and H. Clinton have to do with this comparison?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I did exalt Carter a bit when I mentioned the Camp David Accords.

Here are other accomplishments that many many have forgotten:

1. Created the Department of Energy. The DOE provided the administration with the bureaucratic chops to formulate and implement what could have been a comprehensive, long-term national energy strategy. Had Carter's aggressive gas mileage standards continued to be pursued by subsequent administrations, we would today -- 30-odd years later -- be dramatically less dependent on Saudi oil.

2. Created the Department of Education. Despite howls from anti-government groups who opposed yet another federal agency, the decision to carve out Education from the already over-burdened Department. of Health, Education and Welfare (now the Department of Health and Human Services) was a bold and necessary one.

3. Supported SALT II (Strategic Arms Limitations Talks). It sounds trivial today, but in the 1970s a nuclear non-proliferation pact, even a flawed one, was seen as an important step in forging a lasting peace with the USSR. A generation ago, people were genuinely frightened of a nuclear holocaust. Although Carter and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev signed the agreement, the U.S. Congress, in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, refused to ratify it.

4. Brokered the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. By initiating the Camp David Accords between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat (which led directly to the landmark treaty), Carter laid the groundwork for improved Israeli-Arab relations. That good relations in the region never materialized wasn't Carter's fault.

5. Installed solar panels in the White House. This was not only a practical gesture, but a symbolic one as well, demonstrating to the world that America was serious about conserving energy, and that conservation does, indeed, begin at home. Alas, Ronald Reagan believed solar panels made the United States look pathetic and needy, and had them removed.

6. Boycotted the 1980 Olympics. In response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Carter boycotted the Moscow games, a decision that earned him ridicule and scorn, even though Japan, West Germany, China, Canada, et al, supported his decision. Boycotts are unpredictable. Some work, most don't. Still, who knows what would have happened if the world had boycotted the 2004 Olympics to protest of the U.S. invasion of Iraq? It might have made a difference.

7. Granted amnesty to Vietnam draft-dodgers. Even though Carter issued these unconditional pardons on January 21, 1977 (his first day in office), the political fallout was severe enough to cost him votes in the 1980 election. Controversial as it was, this gutsy call helped move the country forward, providing closure to one of the most divisive issues in American history.

8. Established diplomatic relations with China. Officially transferring U.S. diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to mainland China seems like a no-brainer today, but in the year 1979 it was a singularly progressive move.

9. Pushed for comprehensive health care reform. Carter's plan was bigger, better, cheaper and -- right out of the blocks -- had a greater chance of passing in its original form than either Clinton's or Obama's plan, but inertia, timidity, and old-fashioned politics (both Democratic and Republican) ultimately killed it.

10. Returned the Panama Canal to Panama. Another gutsy move that surely cost him votes. By ceding the canal to tiny Panama, the mighty U.S. looked confident and magnanimous.... instead of paranoid and petty. Although Carter was able to secure bipartisan support, of the 20 senators who voted in favor of the treaty, and were up for re-election, only 7 were re-elected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-maca......343.html
Pecan_Creek
View Profile
Veteran user
The Nation of TEXAS!
323 Posts

Profile of Pecan_Creek
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, The Hermit wrote:
The US is the strongest country in the world militarily and will remain that way for a long time. We control the air and sea. We are not behind in the things that count.


Sad really that the only thing that counts to some is how many bodies we can pile up and how quickly we can do it.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, The Hermit wrote:
The US is the strongest country in the world militarily and will remain that way for a long time. We control the air and sea. We are not behind in the things that count.


Except education. That doesn't bode well for the future.
The Hermit
View Profile
Veteran user
301 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
GEEZ BOB. You put up a bunch of stuff Carter did and most of it was window dressing or didn't do squat. Dept Education - sop to the teachers union. As you admit our education system sucks. Look at grad stats before the DOE and after.

SALT II and Camp David - nothing happened.
Olympic Boycot - Boy we showed the Russians. He politicized a thing that was not necessarily political.

Amnesty - who was divided on that. Those of us that faced the draft didn't think it was so great. The whole war protest thing was only important because of the draft. The people protesting were the ones that might have to go. No of us wanted to. You don't see protest today because there is no draft.

Solar Panels - empty gesture. Didn't stop them using electricity and accounted for squat in savings.

Most of the stuff you mentioned clearly defines Carter. Empty Gestures, Failed Attempts.
You forgot to mention leaving hostages in Iran for years. Plus the bungled attempt to free them. Ross Perot had his people kidnapped in Iran. He got some mercenaries and he himself went and got them out. Maybe we shoulda outsourced that to Perot Systems.

You forgot his whiny malaise speech that bummed out all of America. Also his meddling in foreign affairs as a private citizen. He's a loser. Even your list proves it.
The Hermit
View Profile
Veteran user
301 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, The Hermit wrote:
I lived through Carter. He was a stumbling clusterf@@k without a vision that could be articulated. Rankings will always change over time. To say that Carter was better than George W. is a little hard to swallow. Depends on ranking criteria. A President should inspire and lead with a vision - what all good CEOs do. Reagan had that and was an incredible counterpoint to Carter in that regard. Obama does not have an articulate vision or one he doesn't want to articulate. Teddy had one, Franklin had one. Some driven by necessity, some by ideas of making things better. Like they say 'Some people become president to be somebody, some become president to do something'. Obama seems to be in the 'be somebody' club. If we look at standard of living and how people feel about our country presently, then Obama is losing. The US is the strongest country in the world militarily and will remain that way for a long time. We control the air and sea. We are not behind in the things that count. Everyone else in the world knows that. Obama and almost no President will change that. However, how the country feels about itself and where we are going does reside at the President's door. According to all the polls, he's losing on that too.


At least Carter never fabricated evidence to invade an independent nation.

Yes Kerry and Hillary Clinton fabricated the info. Are we still going to claim this?

Why is it liberal records can't just stand on their own? The answer would be to exalt Carters record not to beat a constant drum beat of we are not as bad. This tactic alone says a lot.


thehermit compared Carter and Bush. I replied with a difference between Carter and Bush. What in the world to Kerry and H. Clinton have to do with this comparison?


The point is that where is the evidence that HE fabricated it. The Kerry/Clinton thing was a tangent on the vote to go to war. They all saw the evidence. If all of the Senators that voted for war were not smart enough to ask questions and try to understand then Bush was a genius. He was so good he could control the whole intelligence apparatus to do his bidding. Not likely. All the Senators got their briefings from the CIA, NSA, etc. You just can't go around saying Bush fabricated evidence. If he did, then the man was far smarter than you want to give credit for.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, The Hermit wrote:

The point is that where is the evidence that HE fabricated it. The Kerry/Clinton thing was a tangent on the vote to go to war. They all saw the evidence. If all of the Senators that voted for war were not smart enough to ask questions and try to understand then Bush was a genius. He was so good he could control the whole intelligence apparatus to do his bidding. Not likely. All the Senators got their briefings from the CIA, NSA, etc. You just can't go around saying Bush fabricated evidence. If he did, then the man was far smarter than you want to give credit for.


I've never doubted Mr. Bush's intelligence. His "simple country boy" act was very crafty. In the end, Bush is responsible for the evidence he presented and for the certainty with which he presented. His credibility was the main selling point.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
The Hermit
View Profile
Veteran user
301 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:


I've never doubted Mr. Bush's intelligence. His "simple country boy" act was very crafty. In the end, Bush is responsible for the evidence he presented and for the certainty with which he presented. His credibility was the main selling point.


He didn't present the evidence. The security agencies did. The senators that voted got their briefings from those agencies. To claim he presented it is ludicrous. You are saying that he alone presented the intelligence reports. Just not true. That's not how things work. Think it through.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Hermit-

Nothing happened as a result of Camp David? Wow. You really need to reread some history. Egypt and Israel had been in a nearly constant state of war prior to the accords that were brokered by Carter. They have been at peace EVER SINCE.

Sorry you think that's nothing.

And again, historians have rated him 27th. Not great, but certainly better than many others, including a few who it's not PC to name here.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, The Hermit wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:


I've never doubted Mr. Bush's intelligence. His "simple country boy" act was very crafty. In the end, Bush is responsible for the evidence he presented and for the certainty with which he presented. His credibility was the main selling point.


He didn't present the evidence. The security agencies did. The senators that voted got their briefings from those agencies. To claim he presented it is ludicrous. You are saying that he alone presented the intelligence reports. Just not true. That's not how things work. Think it through.


Pinched from History News Network.

United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002: "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.""We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002: "The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003: "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

I don't want to hijack the thread. If you'd like to discuss this further, perhaps another thread should be started.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Well if that's not presenting the evidence, I don't know what is.

Wasn't there also testimony from an official in one of the intelligence agencies that the Bush administration made it perfectly clear what information they were interested in and what they didn't want to hear about?

Recall also what happened when Valerie Plame's husband stated that the yellow cake uranium Saddam was supposedly acquiring from Africa was not suitable for nuclear weapons. Nor were the tubes that Saddam was acquiring suitable for use in that area.

The administration ignored that and, instead, outed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative.

Now if Bush didn't know about all of this, then the complaints that he was an idiot have validity.

And I don't believe he was an idiot.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, The Hermit wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:


I've never doubted Mr. Bush's intelligence. His "simple country boy" act was very crafty. In the end, Bush is responsible for the evidence he presented and for the certainty with which he presented. His credibility was the main selling point.


He didn't present the evidence. The security agencies did. The senators that voted got their briefings from those agencies. To claim he presented it is ludicrous. You are saying that he alone presented the intelligence reports. Just not true. That's not how things work. Think it through.


Pinched from History News Network.

United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002: "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.""We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002: "The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003: "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

I don't want to hijack the thread. If you'd like to discuss this further, perhaps another thread should be started.


With respect to the nuclear program, there WAS, indeed, such evidence, in the form of e.g., testimony from Kadir Hamsa. Had there been a WMD attack, in light of the information that WAS available and the fact that Hussein was thoroughly noncompliant with the terms of the ceasefire for the first Gulf War, I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of those who now criticize Bush would be saying, "How could he have not moved against Iraq, with all we knew?" The best quarterbacks always come out on Monday morning.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
The Hermit
View Profile
Veteran user
301 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
OK once again. Bush certainly presented evidence to the public. However, as to why we went to war - CONGRESS VOTED TO DO IT. They got their info from intelligence agencies. So he corrupted the entire intelligence org and made them present lies to Congress. And, all the congressmen didn't know any better or pursue potential other scenarios? PUHLEEZE. As to ONE official stating that Bush asked for only certain info. Are we to believe that all the agencies would stand by and let him get away with that.

Whatever Bush presented to the public, he either got that from intelligence or he made it up. The public didn't vote to go to war - Congress did. They didn't rely on Bush's testimony only. Blaming Bush is a little disingenuous when a majority of Congress voted to go to war.

The Plame affair has a lot of different opinions. She was a desk jockey not an operative and most of her husband's statements have never been verified.
lunatik
View Profile
Inner circle
2934 Posts

Profile of lunatik
Come on Hermit, you know as everyone else here that he was deep undercover, collecting intel, hacking some computers, personally interrogating key suspects, then list goes on!
"Don't let your Dreams become Fantasies"
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5156 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
With respect to the nuclear program, there WAS, indeed, such evidence

Much evidence they knew was false as it was coming from tortured prisoners and known profiteers. They ignored much strong evidence that showed the weapons had been de-commissioned. And Colin Powell talked about "evidence" to the UN, even while knowing he was being double-crossed by those who were giving him the false info.

Quote:
Come on Hermit, you know as everyone else here that he was deep undercover, collecting intel, hacking some computers, personally interrogating key suspects, then list goes on!

Yes who could possibly blame a President for the actions of his Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, and subordinates which he never disowned either then or subsequently. The Party of Personal Responsibility™
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2014, landmark wrote:
Much evidence they knew was false as it was coming from tortured prisoners


This is a non sequitur.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..8..13..18..23..27~28~29~30~31..44~45~46 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2023 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL