New Bob Woodward Book

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peebo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeanne_S said:
The entire impeachment movement was in the works ,along with the Russian collusion" scandal" before Trump was even elected.
Click to expand...
Source on the issue of “impeachment”? Also, there definitely was evidence of Russian collusion that came out prior to the election but Obama chose not to bring it up.

And as it’s turned out, we are absolutly positive about the Russian interference, and also we’re absolutely certain that at least some in the Trump camp were involved. Now, how much Trump himself may have known is not at least publicly clear, but it’s conceivable that Mueller may already know.
 
Blind to what? I realize the left wants open borders. That’s plain. But this administration does not. Because of a 9th Circuit court ruling, the administration had to hold adults and accompanying minors (many of whom are not the children of the adults) in separate facilities. The left screamed about that and the administration stopped it.

If VOX isn’t just lying (easily a 50-50 proposition) keeping the adults and minors together isn’t going to be allowed by the Ninth Circuit for Trump any more than it was with Obama.

Nobody can be held “indefinitely” and Vox is certainly lying about that. The previous Ninth Circuit orders make that plain.
 
Metis1 said:
And as it’s turned out, …we’re absolutely certain that at least some in the Trump camp were involved
Click to expand...
Let’s see the evidence then, that some in the Trump campaign were involved in “Russian interference” with the election. So far, the only proof of “collusion” is on the part of Hillary Clinton, Ohr, Strzok, Brennan, Rosenstein, McCabe and Page.
 
“The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: “Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator”.5
 
Just because you don’t have the evidence in your hands does not mean it doesn’t exist. Of course you distrust the experts, right?
 
F_Marturana said:
whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation,
Click to expand...
How far does this go, do you suggest? Handcuffing a prisoner to take him to jail? Clearly that’s a “coercion of the will” and “insults human dignity”. Papadopoulos is going to jail for two weeks because he gave a wrong date to one of Mueller’s people. Flynn is going to jail for lying to the FBI when even Strzok admits he did not.

Where do you draw the line? All deportations? All of them? Or is there some circumstance under which it’s permissible? Popes have said nations can maintain their borders. Is that right meaningless if it can’t deport anyone once they make it in?

What do we do with the “homeless camps” in California? Hard to imagine anything better fitting the description “…subhuman living conditions…” Do we put them all up in hotels, with a caseworker for each to ensure that they don’t just regress?

The problem with a lot of these kinds of general pronouncements is in the execution. Where do we draw the line? As with torture, I have more than once asked people on here to define it in a way that excludes ordinary things none of us consider torture. As yet, nobody on CAF at least has come up with a bright line test. Nobody.
 
CCC 2297 excerpt: Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

UN defined torture in 1984:

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm

" For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any
act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or
a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at
the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or
suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

I use these to define torture. Torture is a non-negotiable when I vote.
 
The snippet from the catechism does not tell us what things are torture and what things are not. What is “physical or moral violence”?

And the hypocritical UN definition which nobody on the planet actually follows, what is “severe mental suffering”? What is “severe physical suffering”? What’s the yardstick for either one. These “definitions” are just circular. And to crown the hypocrisy, the last sentence allows for anything at all, no matter how terrible.

You still have not given a bright line test for what is “torture” and what is not. Ultimately, most everybody “defines” it as “whatever I think it is” in reality.
 
As I should have learned 100 posts ago, you and I have diametrically opposed world views. In order to maintain charity, promise to stop responding to your posts.
 
TheLittleLady said:
For me, rule of thumb is to go to the primary source first. I will have another free hour to read today so maybe I will get to that part.
Click to expand...
The primary sources would be Mattis and Kelly, not Woodward, who is, at best, once removed, and most likely several steps removed from the primary sources. Let me know when you get on their calendars.
Metis1 said:
I already explained why such an incentive would be there in a previous post, and instead of being “traitorous” it could be viewed as being a “necessary evil”, especially as it’s also mentioned in the NYT piece but without names. In real life, these people may be heroes.
Click to expand...
How is hiding in the shadows and usurping the will of the people’s legally elected representatives heroic? If Trump is truly a danger to the Republic, hiding documents and saying mean things behind his back is pretty weak sauce. Not what you’d expect from a Marine.
 
Last edited:
ucfengr said:
The primary sources would be Mattis and Kelly, not Woodward, who is, at best, once removed, and most likely several steps removed from the primary sources. Let me know when you get on their calendars.
Click to expand...
If I wrote a book, I would want you to read what I wrote instead of what someone else said to someone who said to someone else. For what Mr Woodward claims, I will read what Mr Woodward wrote. From there I will further research.

You know what I mean, honestly, I’d hope in real life you have a little more respect for the people you dialogue with. The condescension is not kind.
 
Last edited:
Jeanne_S said:
OMG!You are kidding!
Click to expand...
Not at all.
I listen briefly but regularly to likes of Levin, Limbaugh, et al.
I m constantly amazed at how much time they spend musing about what their opponents really think, thne knocking down the straw man versions of the opponents that they create.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Just yet another Alinsky tactic.
Click to expand...
I’ve noticed that people here at CAF love to throw around Alinsky’s name. Alinsky, Alinskyite, etc.

Gotta ask, have you ever read Rules for Radicals, or anything else by Alinsky? I have, and there’s nothing about Obama’s recent speech that could remotely be described as Alinskyite.

So I’m curious as to what you mean by calling his speech an “Alinksy tactic.”
 
Ridgerunner said:
Where do we draw the line? As with torture, I have more than once asked people on here to define it in a way that excludes ordinary things none of us consider torture.
Click to expand...
Are we going to re-hash this debate again?

You are absolutely correct that it is hard to come up with a hard line on what constitutes torture.

I do recall, in another thread some time ago, that you opined that waterboarding is not torture, and that the United States was wrong to prosecute members of the Japanese military for waterboarding American prisoners of war. So I get that you and I, and you and the United States, disagree on what constitutes torture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top