Quote :

"I also willingly concede that it is probably in the 10% range of the total population."

based on..... ?

1/22/2009 10:56:17 AM

Habeus corpus is common fucking sense, you twits. Here's the idea: we should actually have a good reason backed by, I don't know, a shred of fucking evidence when we're going to be holding prisoners indefinitely. You know, skirting around that whole Geneva Convention requirement that we actually release P.O.W.'s (who we still can be challenged to show that they were in fact, combatants, and not just some random people we rounded up) once hostilities have ceased.

I know, mind-blowing.

And it's too bad the Supreme Court disagrees with you, given that Guantanamo is still a U.S. base being run by U.S. authorities.

1/22/2009 10:57:13 AM

^^^ Common decency and a genuine interest in freedom, democracy, and should guide you to not imprisoning people indefinitely, and trying and charging people without them knowing the charges and evidence against them. We're not Saudi Arabia or Iran, we're the USA.

^^^^ It's not as complex as you make it out to be. We screwed up, and we have to take responsibility for our actions, isn't that a Conservative mantra? If WE have NO REASON to hold someone, we don't hold them. If we think someone is going to be a threat, and we have evidence or solid reasoning to show that (otherwise, why think they're a threat?), then we hold them. It's that simple. What we don't do is hold people indefinitely without a reason to hold them, we're not Saudi Arabia or Iran.

On top of that, attacks world-wide have risen since Bush's crazy war, and we did have attacks after 9/11, just not in the scale of 9/11 (and we never had any attacks on the scale of 9/11 before either). I didn't realize people seriously bought in to this Limbaugh-esque prevarication.

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ]

1/22/2009 11:02:22 AM

Quote :

"Habeus corpus is common fucking sense, you twits. Here's the idea: we should actually have a good reason backed by, I don't know, a shred of fucking evidence when we're going to be holding prisoners indefinitely. You know, skirting around that whole Geneva Convention requirement that we actually release P.O.W.'s (who we still can be challenged to show that they were in fact, combatants, and not just some random people we rounded up) once hostilities have ceased. I know, mind-blowing. And it's too bad the Supreme Court disagrees with you, given that Guantanamo is still a U.S. base being run by U.S. authorities. "

Wow, you absolutely have no idea what you are talking about, none. At all. Nothing is true in your post. Not one sentence. It's all incorrect, legally speaking.

When we adopt an "Oprah" style of government, then maybe you are right, but until then you should really keep your opinions to yourself, because that's all they are.

1/22/2009 11:26:11 AM

Quote :

"based on..... ?"

seems like a reasonable percentage of error. it might be higher than that, might be lower (thought I doubt its lower). if gitmo holds 200 prisoners, ~20 of them likely are purely innocent men. nobody knows for sure but when statistics are eventually released down the road I would be interested to see them.

Quote :

"Habeus corpus is common fucking sense, you twits. Here's the idea: we should actually have a good reason backed by, I don't know, a shred of fucking evidence when we're going to be holding prisoners indefinitely. You know, skirting around that whole Geneva Convention requirement that we actually release P.O.W.'s (who we still can be challenged to show that they were in fact, combatants, and not just some random people we rounded up) once hostilities have ceased. I know, mind-blowing. And it's too bad the Supreme Court disagrees with you, given that Guantanamo is still a U.S. base being run by U.S. authorities. "

you know, a shred of evidence could be anything. known associations, word of mouth, anonymous informant...anything. thats not what you are saying. you are saying they should be given the same proof of guilt provisions given a US citizen arrested by the police. that is idiotic, sir.

further, they are not classified as POW's (as they should be). you have your terms mixed up. as POW's (like you have called them) they would not be released until the end of the conflict anyway. hostilities have not ceased, so even by your own, misinformed definition they should still be locked away. we werent releasing Nazis until Germany surrendered. we should not release terrorists until their parent organizations 'surrender.'

Quote :

"^^^ Common decency and a genuine interest in freedom, democracy, and should guide you to not imprisoning people indefinitely, and trying and charging people without them knowing the charges and evidence against them. We're not Saudi Arabia or Iran, we're the USA. ^^^^ It's not as complex as you make it out to be. We screwed up, and we have to take responsibility for our actions, isn't that a Conservative mantra? If WE have NO REASON to hold someone, we don't hold them. If we think someone is going to be a threat, and we have evidence or solid reasoning to show that (otherwise, why think they're a threat?), then we hold them. It's that simple. What we don't do is hold people indefinitely without a reason to hold them, we're not Saudi Arabia or Iran. On top of that, attacks world-wide have risen since Bush's crazy war, and we did have attacks after 9/11, just not in the scale of 9/11 (and we never had any attacks on the scale of 9/11 before either). I didn't realize people seriously bought in to this Limbaugh-esque prevarication."

I agree they should know why they are being held. As I said, their cases should be individually reviewed by a small panel of military and intel experts who know what they are looking at. Not some federally pointed bozo in Kansas.

I say we did screw up...they shouldve been appointed as POWs. They were not and now they have fallen into this gray area of what do with them and how to classify them. It makes no sense to hold someone without cause. I 100% agree with you. We just differ on what that cause is.

There have been no attacks on US soil. That is fact and it is attributed to the efforts of the Bush Administration. I know your toes curl at the thought of cussing W or talking shit about him but you at least have to acknowledge that our homeland has been protected. We cannot guard the world's soft targets.

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 11:32 AM. Reason : i write like a 10-year old]

1/22/2009 11:29:12 AM

Quote :

"There have been no attacks on US soil. That is fact and it is attributed to the efforts of the Bush Administration. "

There have been attacks. You are either a sucker for far-right radio or simply ignorant to believe otherwise.

1/22/2009 12:47:41 PM

^ Are you counting embassies? And I think it's generally meant successful attacks.

1/22/2009 12:56:11 PM

^ not counting embassies (although there's no good reason on to). But this issue is not for this thread, we've discussed terrorism countless times here before: http://brentroad.com/message_search.aspx?type=topic§ion=4&searchstring=terrorism&username=&usertype=match&sortby=date&sortorder=descending&page=

Quote :

"I say we did screw up...they shouldve been appointed as POWs."

You do realize though that many on the right fought hard to NOT appoint them as POWs because they don't fight for a uniformed army (and some other things)?

It looks like Obama was thinking along the same lines as you though:

Quote :

"The executive order says everyone in custody should be questioned under the Army Field Manual, which is intended for honorable combatants, meaning POWs in a military conflict. The rule would prevent trained interrogators at the CIA from using lawful interrogation techniques against terrorists who have been trained to withstand Army Field Manual techniques."

- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/22/obama-issues-directives-detainees-interrogation-guantanamo/
(this is also a quality reporting job from Fox News, as you can tell)

Quote :

"I agree they should know why they are being held. As I said, their cases should be individually reviewed by a small panel of military and intel experts who know what they are looking at. Not some federally pointed bozo in Kansas."

By this logic, no judge can ever decide anything. What does a judge know about net neutrality? Or corporate accounting practices? Or the physics of a car crash. I'm sure you must realize that in our legal system judges are only 1 component, and they have many tools at their disposal if they choose to use them.

Quote :

" There have been no attacks on US soil. That is fact and it is attributed to the efforts of the Bush Administration. I know your toes curl at the thought of cussing W or talking shit about him but you at least have to acknowledge that our homeland has been protected."

Our homeland has been protected, but it's always been protected. GWB hasn't visibly done much differently or better than any other president towards this goal. What GWB has done though is take actions that have increased terrorism around the world significantly. And while they aren't directly attacking our homeland, they are attacking our interest and allies in a (successful) attempt to manipulate our behavior.

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2009 1:11:34 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/22/guantanamo-obamas-executi_n_160054.html

This is the full text of the orders.

What's interesting is that the Fox News link I just posted (which doesn't seem to be an editorial or blog posting) contains some blatantly wrong information about the orders. I wonder if they'll catch and update their mistakes?

1/22/2009 1:26:02 PM

more

Quote :

"Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law."

Quote :

"The experts' verdicts on the potential impact of President Obama's executive order on presidential records are starting to come in. And they're bolstering our initial take that Obama's move could significantly boost efforts to release crucial records that the Bush administration has fought to keep secret. Doug Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine law school and expert on executive privilege, told TPMmuckraker that the order makes it harder for former presidents to block the release of their documents. And, crucially, he said it could impact current high-profile struggles over Bush's records, "whether it be the dismissal of US Attorneys, whether it be other assertions of executive privilege dealing with White House emails and the like.""

- http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/experts_obama_order_could_let_us_see_us_attorneys.php

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2009 2:33:16 PM

i haent seen any change yet. so how has change come? it has been 2 days!

excuse me the only change is the guy in the white house so far

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2009 3:09:54 PM

And those executive orders he signed...

1/22/2009 3:17:44 PM

Yeah, Obama has made some pretty major changes I'd say.

He's flexin that presidential power. Closing Gitmo was easy. I can't wait to see what he does with those people.

1/22/2009 3:30:22 PM

Quote :

"Wow, you absolutely have no idea what you are talking about, none. At all. Nothing is true in your post. Not one sentence. It's all incorrect, legally speaking."

Wonderful. And for proof of this statement, we have... nothing. Just your word. Kind of like the standard of evidence we're using at Gitmo right now.

It's foolproof!

Quote :

"When we adopt an "Oprah" style of government, then maybe you are right, but until then you should really keep your opinions to yourself, because that's all they are."

One could almost make the same statement about you. But not only do we let loudmouthed idiots still talk out of turn, we even still let them vote.

Consider yourself fortunate.

1/22/2009 3:37:30 PM

^^ Gitmo hasn't closed yet. From what I understand, they've only formed a "task force" to see what it would require to close it before years end, and to figure out the best way to handle the closing. There's plenty more to sort out...

But he definitely seems to be moving pretty swiftly on a lot of the things he talked about. I guess though following Bush, he doesn't really have a choice.

^ regarding that issue...

Quote :

" (c) The individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention. "

- Executive Order (see Huffington Post link)

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 3:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2009 3:38:23 PM

Quote :

"you know, a shred of evidence could be anything. known associations, word of mouth, anonymous informant...anything. thats not what you are saying. you are saying they should be given the same proof of guilt provisions given a US citizen arrested by the police. that is idiotic, sir."

And in many cases, we don't even have that to go on. We didn't catch plenty of these guys. We don't even have a shred of evidence that many of these people did anything. Our process for rounding up many of these people was surprisingly indiscriminate.

Furthermore, a habeus hearing is not a full, criminal trial. It is the first and most preliminary step, challenging whether the state has a valid, legal ground to hold the accused. It is not a determination of guilt - which is what the military tribunals were designed for. It is a hearing to determine whether sufficient evidence exists that the person should be held for trial at all.

Unless you propose we phone up Miss Cleo to do all that work for us, that is. Because that is about the only way you're going to find out just who actually belongs there.

Quote :

"further, they are not classified as POW's (as they should be). you have your terms mixed up. as POW's (like you have called them) they would not be released until the end of the conflict anyway. hostilities have not ceased, so even by your own, misinformed definition they should still be locked away. we werent releasing Nazis until Germany surrendered. we should not release terrorists until their parent organizations 'surrender.'"

I never called them POWs - I said that we skirted around that provision, i.e., by calling them "enemy combatants" and throwing them into legal limbo. Before you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, it may be helpful if you actually read what I wrote.

Furthermore, if you're going to take the condition that we must wait for the surrender of a recognized authority, good luck with that one. We don't even recognize these people as uniformed soldiers, much less recognize any terrorist organization as a legitimate authority - so how exactly are we supposed to recognize an "end to hostilities" for what amounts to an undeclared war on a stateless actor? And if we're talking about Taliban fighters, well here's a newsflash for you - the Taliban government is no longer in power. So there isn't even any "legitimate government" to extract surrender from.

But you know, back in the day I seem to recall us having a way with dealing with people who would do violence to U.S. citizens - I think it involved something like, oh, I don't know - gathering evidence, charging them with a crime, and locking them away.

But who has the time to deal with that, anyways?

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 3:48 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2009 3:46:42 PM

something about your posts just screams precocious. not saying you don't have a sharp wit, but you could lay off the e-sass.

1/22/2009 3:56:52 PM

Quote :

" And in many cases, we don't even have that to go on. We didn't catch plenty of these guys. We don't even have a shred of evidence that many of these people did anything. Our process for rounding up many of these people was surprisingly indiscriminate. "

you keep saying this and I keep remembering by brother and my cousins describe taking prisoners in Anbar after hunting down RPG teams in the street. their unit detained, processed and sometimes freed hundreds of the enemy during the surge. where are you getting your numbers from?

further, you asked for a shred. a shred is ANYTHING. word of mouth counts. if bounty hunters are bringing people in they 'heard' were bad guys, well then that is a shred isnt it?

Quote :

" Furthermore, if you're going to take the condition that we must wait for the surrender of a recognized authority, good luck with that one. We don't even recognize these people as uniformed soldiers, much less recognize any terrorist organization as a legitimate authority - so how exactly are we supposed to recognize an "end to hostilities" for what amounts to an undeclared war on a stateless actor? And if we're talking about Taliban fighters, well here's a newsflash for you - the Taliban government is no longer in power. So there isn't even any "legitimate government" to extract surrender from."

yeah way to be objective about your observations. while there are no Taliban or Al Queda governments in place, even you cant argue that we are done fighting. we are still fighting both groups and its ridiculous to release prisoners while we are still fighting, especially if you want to treat them like POWs. end of hostilities will be when there is an end of hostilities. thats all. if it doesnt happen fast enough for the bleeding hearts, then oh well.

Quote :

"But you know, back in the day I seem to recall us having a way with dealing with people who would do violence to U.S. citizens - I think it involved something like, oh, I don't know - gathering evidence, charging them with a crime, and locking them away. But who has the time to deal with that, anyways? "

well do you want them to be treated as POWs or do you want them to be treated as unlawful combatants? there is a pretty big difference. I mean, I dont even know where to go from here with you. your post is all full of stupid. US courts and laws dont have jurisdiction in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the ones who are accused of planning and participating in terror plots on US soil are being prosecuted. khalid sheik muhammed is the first one that comes to mind. are you mental?

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2009 4:01:32 PM

Quote :

"you keep saying this and I keep remembering by brother and my cousins describe taking prisoners in Anbar after hunting down RPG teams in the street. their unit detained, processed and sometimes freed hundreds of the enemy during the surge. where are you getting your numbers from?"

First of all, from one of the direct account someone that even the Bush Administration declared to be innocent all along - one of the captured Uighurs:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEFDB1331F934A2575AC0A9609C8B63

Quote :

"I was locked up and mistreated for being in the wrong place at the wrong time during America's war in Afghanistan. Like hundreds of Guantánamo detainees, I was never a terrorist or a soldier. I was never even on a battlefield. Pakistani bounty hunters sold me and 17 other Uighurs to the United States military like animals for $5,000 a head. The Americans made a terrible mistake. It was only the country's centuries-old commitment to allowing habeas corpus challenges that put that mistake right -- or began to. In May, on the eve of a court hearing in my case, the military relented, and I was sent to Albania along with four other Uighurs. But 12 of my Uighur brothers remain in Guantánamo today. Will they be stranded there forever? "

The Uighers alone were 17 people, out of the roughly 500 in custody.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/all-uighurs-now-off-enemy-list/

There are literally dozens of other cases like this, some documented even by the prior administration, some not. Much of this came to light in the last year, once they decided they were going to dump most of the prisoners (about 2/3) and try the rest.

Of course, as we all know, the Bush Administration really was just a bunch of terrorist sympathizers, turning loose a huge chunk of the Gitmo population, now weren't they?

Quote :

"further, you asked for a shred. a shred is ANYTHING. word of mouth counts. if bounty hunters are bringing people in they 'heard' were bad guys, well then that is a shred isnt it?"

And such a fine job that level of evidence has done for us, hasn't it? I mean, it's not like we rounded up anybody falsely and detained them for years under that standard, right? Then never bothered to check on whether these people were say, actually guilty of anything for the better part of a decade.

But hey, collateral damage even if we did, right?

Quote :

"yeah way to be objective about your observations. while there are no Taliban or Al Queda governments in place, even you cant argue that we are done fighting. we are still fighting both groups and its ridiculous to release prisoners while we are still fighting, especially if you want to treat them like POWs. end of hostilities will be when there is an end of hostilities. thats all. if it doesnt happen fast enough for the bleeding hearts, then oh well."

Yeah, fantastic - assuming, for one, that everybody there is guilty. As I have just proven to you above, and I have proven as to this subject in the past, you are wrong on this point.

To repeat:

We have verifiably demonstrated that many individuals held for years in custody at Guantanamo were innocent of any wrongdoing.

But hey, why don't we just call up Miss Cleo to sort that out for us, since it's so insane to go so far as to actually review cases to see if we have substantial evidence to hold these individuals. Or, I know, we'll just employ you with your spectacular psychic powers, since you seem to know that everybody there is already guilty - you know, even when the Bush Administration conceded that to be untrue.

Quote :

"well do you want them to be treated as POWs or do you want them to be treated as unlawful combatants? there is a pretty big difference. I mean, I dont even know where to go from here with you. your post is all full of stupid."

See, this is the point where it's probably not even worth debating anymore. You've been demonstrated conclusively wrong on pretty much every point, fail at reading comprehension, ignore relevant facts, and when cornered, call the other person stupid.

Again, be thankful we still let you vote.

1/22/2009 5:49:55 PM

Quote :

"First of all, from one of the direct account someone that even the Bush Administration declared to be innocent all along - one of the captured Uighurs: "

wow. you really are holier than thou. I offer one direct account you offer one direct account, except your account somehow implies "dozens of cases of 17 people" being rounded up for money. nice jump there. that is your problem. you have no ability to even process a counter point or another opinion. you are the very definition of OBTUSE. I have willingly conceded that I know there are many inside Gitmo who are there unfairly. somehow, you cant even manage to say that there are even SOME bad people there when likely MOST of them there currently are.

Quote :

"Much of this came to light in the last year, once they decided they were going to dump most of the prisoners (about 2/3) and try the rest. "

like I said, I am sure there were many released that were only there because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. they also released a bunch of guys who they thought were no longer really a threat but who had been taken prisoner while fighting US forces. many of those have since been identified as returning to the battlefield against US forces. further, there are many that dont want to be released because their home governments persecute them more than US does at Gitmo. Weird huh? there are many others whose governments wont take them back if we do release them (this doesnt make me think they are completely innocent...how about you?)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12555919

Quote :

"And such a fine job that level of evidence has done for us, hasn't it? I mean, it's not like we rounded up anybody falsely and detained them for years under that standard, right? Then never bothered to check on whether these people were say, actually guilty of anything for the better part of a decade."

I never said it was right, but you asked for a shred and I gave you one. you implied there was none, so you have already lost that part of the argument. anyways, I guess you are mr. perfect and in a warzone where civilians are dying left and right because of suicide bombers and your comrades are going home in pieces or in bags, you would make the 100% correct judgment everytime someone came to you with information on the people committing said atrocities. damn! we shouldve had you over there! damn you W for not sending DrSteveChaos!!!

its not a perfect science and yes, there will always be collateral damage.

Quote :

"Yeah, fantastic - assuming, for one, that everybody there is guilty. As I have just proven to you above, and I have proven as to this subject in the past, you are wrong on this point."

I guess you cant read because I never said everyone was guilty. jesus you have serious reading problems.

the rest of your post is jibber-jabber and irrelevant. Geneva conventions really doesnt make huge determination of difference between POWs and combatants. additionally, its so public that we have to treat them well and largely, we do. most international prisons make gitmo look like a resort.

I have said many times I fully agree with a qualified panel reviewing each case and making a determination whether or not a person should still be detained. I have no problem with that. I dont think district court judges have the background to make that decision. Another poster pointed out that judges make decisions all the time on things they dont really know about...this is a good point, however they have the exact letter of the law to follow and in this case the law is murky, at best, in regards to evidence, jurisdiction, etc...the intel and military guys can make this decision. hell, put a third party from the UN on the panel if you want to insure objectivity.

clearly, I dont want people tortured. I do think its silly to ban "all coercive interrogation techniques" because those also have merit. It has been well-documented that we have obtained priceless and important operational information from those techniques. I think there is a difference between the two and damn me, but I am willing to err on the cautious side of things. this means we err on the side of caution with these guys and if there are still a few people in there that shouldnt be there, so be it. I would rather that than have released too many and some get out that shouldnt be out so they can come harm your family or mine. but thats just me.


thanks for letting me vote! I didnt know you were on that panel.

1/23/2009 9:27:20 AM

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/01/23/fda-oks-1st-embryonic-stem-cell-trial.html
FDA OKs 1st Embryonic Stem Cell Trial

Obama should be curing cancer any day now

1/23/2009 12:52:36 PM

this is a great thing.

1/23/2009 2:41:10 PM

Quote :

"While the Obama administration has indicated that it will lift the ban, the stem cells used in this trial were obtained from one of the Bush administration's approved stem cell lines. However, no federal funds were used in the development of this treatment."

lulz

1/23/2009 2:44:33 PM

Change HAS come. Obama is using the same EXPENSIVE decorator that Thain used at Merrill Lynch when workers were getting laid off. He charged $1.2 million to redecorate his office. I wonder how much he is charging to decorate the whole Whitehouse.

Seems like a great way to spend money in this economy

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFcrG8er4FRw&refer=home

1/23/2009 4:24:46 PM

dude. he is the president. he gets to re-decorate. he gets new clothes. he gets a new car. he gets a private jet and helicopter to fly around in.

just think of it as part of his salary....plus they all provide jobs.

1/23/2009 4:31:39 PM

he can choose a more economical redecorator. To make the rich, richer, is not following his wealth distribution plan.

1/23/2009 4:33:45 PM

if you want to bitch about something concerning Obama, bitch about a policy. dont complain that he is doing something every new president does.

1/23/2009 4:41:43 PM

oh i can bitch about policy...but dont give me this bullshit about EVERY other president. I thought Obama was supposed to bring change. Its not like he had to do it. I thought he was supposed to represent CHANGE from other presidents and more fisical responsibility.

[Edited on January 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2009 5:12:09 PM

the white house has 132 fucking rooms

you want them to go with "BECKY'S HOUSE OF DESIGN" or something

good fucking grief you people are getting absurd

1/23/2009 6:08:31 PM

"MICHELLE, TURN IT TO TLC, THIS COUPLE ON FLIP THAT HOUSE ARE DOING SOME REALLY COOL STENCIL WORK ON THE BANISTER, YOU AND MALEA SHOULD WORK ON THAT THIS WEEKEND WHILE AT THE SUMMIT"

1/23/2009 6:09:42 PM

^ 132 rooms, i know he probably wont, but it costs 1.2 million for an office, so thats like 132 million, well cut that in half, which makes 62 million, thats a damn lot of money to spend redecorating.

1/23/2009 6:10:18 PM

thats some great math you got there

man, thanks for reminding me why the bush years were so painful for our nation

the figure you're using ain't even related in any way to obama



[Edited on January 23, 2009 at 6:17 PM. Reason : good job assmonkey]

1/23/2009 6:15:17 PM

if you read up on what i was talking about. Thain spent the 1.2 million. Dont start the insults. Youre so mature. Dont know figures for the Whitehouse. I'm just saying he is a very high priced decorator.

1/23/2009 6:17:45 PM

so why on earth would you use that figure for the white house estimate, assmonkey?

1/23/2009 6:37:51 PM

Its an example of Smith's cost.

1/23/2009 6:38:24 PM

Dodge sells a $90,000 Viper

therefore if i buy any 10 dodges, i'm clearly going to spend $900,000

1/23/2009 6:40:53 PM

Nope, but if you buy 10 Vipers you would. This is the same GUY. That analogy makes no fucking sense. The analogy would work if it was some other decorator but this is the same one.

1/23/2009 6:43:34 PM

1/23/2009 6:50:22 PM

1/23/2009 6:55:31 PM

Quote :

"Nope, but if you buy 10 Vipers you would. This is the same GUY. That analogy makes no fucking sense. The analogy would work if it was some other decorator but this is the same one."

clearly, you're an idiot

1/23/2009 8:36:21 PM

a simple facepalm would suffice

por ejemplo

1/23/2009 8:43:18 PM

how's this?

1/23/2009 8:44:25 PM

we're going to cut out all this excess government spending, but i gots to have my rims

[Edited on January 23, 2009 at 9:19 PM. Reason : sucks if your tribunal was anytime in the next 120 days]

1/23/2009 9:19:40 PM

Oh, I forgot. Whatever Obama does is okay, because hes Jesus.

1/23/2009 10:20:46 PM

hey mr. wizard, go cry some more

1/23/2009 10:57:43 PM

Quote :

"Oh, I forgot. Whatever Obama does is okay, because hes Jesus. "

heh...

Do you realize that what Merril Lynch paid a designer doesn't have a single shred of bearing on what the Obamas pay for a designer? And on top of that, the fact that M-L hired him at an inopportune time for them also doesn't have a single shred of bearing on Obama. You also don't have a clue what Obama is paying for his services, and how much of this is shouldered by the tax payer.

It's fine for you to complain about Obama, but there is actually nothing to complain about in this case.

I can't believe you ruined my thread for this.

http://www.kansascity.com/238/story/997968.html

[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 3:36 AM. Reason : ]

1/24/2009 3:24:52 AM

nah dude

every decorating job done by a decorator costs the exact same

and fuck you for thinking otherwise

1/24/2009 3:30:29 AM

Could we delete the last half page of posts? I was enjoying the first debate before Martha Stewart posted her tips on interior decorating.

1/24/2009 9:48:57 AM

Jacques Chirac simply adored my Rooms-To-Go leather couch last time he was over. And I certainly didn't hear Yulia Tymoshenko complaining when I was railing that ass on my Room Store bedroom set.

I just don't see why Obama needs a professional decorator.





(BTW: Angela Merkel loves floor-to-ceiling vertical blinds)

1/24/2009 10:04:20 AM

[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 10:04 AM. Reason : post x 2]

1/24/2009 10:04:20 AM