Comments on: Daily Gut: Saving Face Vs. Saving Lives

By: garment business daily

garment business daily — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:37:17 +0000

Related……

[...]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……

By: The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room » DAY’S END ROUNDUP

The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room » DAY’S END ROUNDUP — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:00:59 +0000

[...] Teh Twitter – Caleb, RedState Pelosi wrong on Harman letter – Steve Foley, The Minority Report Saving face vs. saving lives – Greg Gutfield, Big Hollywood Polluter’s lawyer at DoJ? – Brad Johnson, ThinkProgress Ken Lewis [...]

By: John_McClain

John_McClain — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:11:08 +0000

Or going to the doctor and hes say's "it's time again" and slaps on that rubber glove.

By: John_McClain

John_McClain — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:08:11 +0000

Well how about we use the methods that their country does. We can't really be called anything too terrible because we just explain that we are using the home countries examples.

By: MovieBob

MovieBob — Sun, 17 May 2009 04:28:05 +0000

Well, if nothing else it's nice to finally discover the ONE area where "conservatives" care about nuance

By: AtheistCon

AtheistCon — Sun, 17 May 2009 01:01:19 +0000

"Big Fat LIE (2)"

As damning as your argument is, the agreements between the US and its allies on the issue have stayed the same since the Clinton era.

"Pelosi is guilty as hell and you want to give Bush a pass and Cheney too."

I want to give all three a pass. But the problem is, Pelosi (and other Democrats) are the ones trying to make up a case out of nothing at all.

I don't doubt that ideologically blind people like you who don't care about the security or well-being of your nation really believe all of the government should be prosecuted for 'war crimes' for protecting the nation. All I can hope is that you grow up.

By: AtheistCon

AtheistCon — Sun, 17 May 2009 01:01:11 +0000

"Big Fat LIE (1)" – Canada provided us with information implying that Arar had terroist ties. Canada were the ones who told us to deport him to Syria. They didn't want him. This led to a 'truth commission' in Canada, which found that 'there was no reason to think Arar was tortured'. In fact, the only 'evidence' that Arar was tortured, to this day, remains his word. So we have the word of a man two Western government suspected of being a terrorist … with no backing … and as always, you assume it to be true.

By: AtheistCon

AtheistCon — Sun, 17 May 2009 00:48:21 +0000

Ah, the shifting sands on which liberals stand. So you've now dropped three points, after having them firmly refuted, and you are resorting to the 'ask John McCain about torture' canard. The problem is, with every other idiotic statement you've made solidly debunked, you can't build a bridge to that point. Enhanced interrogation isn't torture. So I rebut with: ask 3000 New Yorkers about the law-based approach to fighting terrorism.

By: Dogness

Dogness — Sat, 16 May 2009 21:45:28 +0000

That should read:

"I _don't_ refer to 'enhanced interrogation techniques' as torture because…"

By: Brisco_County

Brisco_County — Sat, 16 May 2009 20:40:49 +0000

Should I dig up a link about how Bill Clinton's sexual harassment is an indicator of a potential rapist? Or how about the implications of character that stem from Obama's cocaine use?

Of course, it's all nonsense. But what does sense matter when your imagination is running wild about your President being a sociopath?

My advice is to swallow your dogma and get some life experience so you can become a better judge of character. Real life is often way more boring than what paranoia suggests.