Reply With Quote
Takes seconds to cut and paste...I do spend a bit more time formatting and making it look like my idea.
Almost forgot...Why was Obama’s budget fat in the first place?
President Obama is cutting fat from a budget he proposed. Why did he propose it in the first place? This makes little sense.
Granted, there is great hullabaloo in cyberspace over his call to cut $17 billion from a $3,400 billion ($3.4 trillion) budget that was just approved.
It is his budget.
Why did he include the $17 billion in the first place?
And as the Associated Press reported, “Those savings are far exceeded by a phone-book-sized volume detailing Obama’s generous increases for domestic programs that will accompany the call for cuts. And instead of devoting the savings to defray record deficits, the White House is funneling them back into other programs.”
His cuts are a snippet.
A distraction.
He is spending more than any president ever has — and borrowing 4 times more than any president in order to spend, spend, spend.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/05/07/y/
Takes seconds to cut and paste...I do spend a bit more time formatting and making it look like my idea.
just doing your part to pollute a bottom-tier forum?
All of that effort for a bottom-tier political forum?
I'm not, in any way, suggesting that you go elsewhere, but I have frequently wondered what it is that draws you (and Wild Cobra, too) to our bottom-tier forum, given that you don't seem to manifest any particular interest in discussing the San Antonio Spurs. Are you a Spurs fan who lurks when it comes to basketball discussion and has just found a home as the resident Bush apologist in a bottom-tier political forum? Or did the political talk somehow lead you here? I'm honestly curious about that.
By the way, plaigarism doesn't bother me; the bankruptcy of some of the ideas espoused in what you plaigarize and the indifference to trifling things like rules of law does, but the plaigarism itself strikes me as much ado about nothing. It is fun, however, to find the links to what you've posted and bust your chops for not bothering to link to your source material -- particularly when the source strikes me as something less than reputable. I mean, , I could start a political blog and post things to it that might appeal to you, but none of that would make my opinions anything more than what I offer here, in our lowly, bottom-tier political forum.
You guys are a bunch of s. Questioning why someone comes to this site. Good God. Yoni is a threat to some of you. Sad, but very true!
how is he a threat?
Not questioning. Curious. Yonivore can do whatever the he wants and he can write whatever the he wants. I hope he stays here and continues posting. He makes things more interesting here.
But I am curious what brings a political wonk like Yonivore to what he considers a bottom-tier political forum.
Yonivore poses no threat to me. My views are what they are; Yonivore isn't likely to change them. He can't find me personally and he can't do anything to my family. I see no threat.
He is smarter than you.
apparently he's smarter than you.
I'm surprised you didn't take my quote and re-word it for me. That is so clever of you when you do that.
you'd have to be a bottom-tier member of a bottom-tier forum to buy yoni's schtick.
buyers remorse, jack?
Obama remorse!!
I'll get to all this after dinner.
So, you didn't use the actual memorandums, go to the law library, study up on interrogations and write a brief that demonstrated how U.S. v Parker and U.S. v. Lee were relevant to prosecuting DOJ Lawyers for rendering an opinion on what cons uted torture?
I found all those cases using google over the past few years. When I first found them I linked the story. I don't feel the need to do it continuously thereafter and, as you said, you don't read all my posts so there's no way you can tell when I first linked anything. All you can do is try to deny the cases existed, which of course led me to look up the actual case numbers, books written about them, etc.
Wow! You just googled and linked to stories? So how, exactly is that different than my googling and ripping off content to which you merely link?
Like I said, your ideas are no more original than mine. They're based on second-, third-, fourth- or more-handed information gathered from sources you trust and can find on the internet.
The only difference is that I don't take the time to reformulate others words into my own and post it. If I agree with what is being said, I cut and paste it here.
Frankly, I would think the content is more important than the method for the content being posted. Call me lazy, call me disingenuous, call me a plagiarist; I don't care. But, don't pretend your attacks on me, in any way, respond to the content I've posted.
I challenge your assertion. Not anywhere near "pretty much everyone in the legal community" has even stated an opinion on this matter publicly. Again, you -- like me -- are relying on internet sources you trust. I get that. But, that, in itself, doesn't translate to anything meaningful where a debate in an internet forum is concerned. You simply post information you believe supports your position and I do the same.
Considering a) there have been no criminal charges filed on anyone -- most particularly Yoo and Bybee -- and b) not even a significant fraction of the evidence necessary for you to draw the conclusions reached. The assertion Bybee and Yoo violated the law are premature and based on biases you have against everyone associated with the Bush administration.
Otherwise, you'd be insisting Congresswoman Pelosi and Congressman Rockefeller be similarly prosecuted because they were complicit in the enhanced interrogation techniques being employed.
You are a useful idiot in the left's attempts to mask low politics as high principle.
Ah, the arrogance of idiocy. Explain, first, what crimes Bybee and Yoo committed. Then, tell me how U. S. v. Parker and U. S. vs. Lee are relevant.
Meh, you do the same but, you just run others ideas through that pea brain of yours.
I've never lied and, I readily admit that I steal content and post it to appear as if it's my own. I've explained in great detail why. But, it's not an attempt to get credit for the content...not that I care if you belive otherwise.
It's entertaining. In the past I've had more time to spend on here than I currently do.
I enjoy posting in this forum.
Fair questions.
I don't like basketball. I've often said they should give each team 102 points and two minutes on the clock. That's what every game I've ever watched seems to boil down to. So, no, it's not the basketball that drew me here.
A member of this forum -- who doesn't post here much anymore -- and I were also members of another forum. That member introduced me to SpursTalk after the other forum (SpursReport) deteriorated into complete nonsense under the drunken helm of Chris Duel. What a whack job.
Anyway, It's an outlet that I've enjoyed using over the years. I appreciate that Kori doesn't take sides even though I know she rarely agrees with me and I appreciate that all posters are pretty much treated equally by the board's monitors.
I'd be interested to know which ideas you consider to be "bankrupt," and to which rules of law you believe me to be "indifferent."
Again, I'd be interested to know which of the sources, to which I've linked or from which I've used material, that you find disreputable.
Nope. Bybee and Yoo never studied up on Parker or Lee either -- or did and purposely left them out of their legal arguments -- which makes them really bad lawyers. The only reason you have the full citations is that you asked me for them since you decided to stall and deny the case actually existed. Tell me -- what did you do with the full citations once you had them? Last I checked, you were still asking me to hold your hand and tell you what Lee was about.
I never pretended to write the articles myself.Wow! You just googled and linked to stories? So how, exactly is that different than my googling and ripping off content to which you merely link?
I don't pretend I wrote them myself.Like I said, your ideas are no more original than mine. They're based on second-, third-, fourth- or more-handed information gathered from sources you trust and can find on the internet.
Yes, the difference is you are so insecure, you need to pretend you wrote them yourself.The only difference is that I don't take the time to reformulate others words into my own and post it. If I agree with what is being said, I cut and paste it here.
You are lazy, disingenuous, a liar and a thief. I respond to the content you steal as well.Frankly, I would think the content is more important than the method for the content being posted. Call me lazy, call me disingenuous, call me a plagiarist; I don't care. But, don't pretend your attacks on me, in any way, respond to the content I've posted.
Any lawyer that has commented on the research has said it sucked.I challenge your assertion. Not anywhere near "pretty much everyone in the legal community" has even stated an opinion on this matter publicly. Again, you -- like me -- are relying on internet sources you trust. I get that. But, that, in itself, doesn't translate to anything meaningful where a debate in an internet forum is concerned. You simply post information you believe supports your position and I do the same.
They sucked as lawyers. That's not necessarily a crime. That doesn't mean they didn't suck. Your sucking is not a crime, yet you do suck.Considering a) there have been no criminal charges filed on anyone -- most particularly Yoo and Bybee -- and b) not even a significant fraction of the evidence necessary for you to draw the conclusions reached. The assertion Bybee and Yoo violated the law are premature and based on biases you have against everyone associated with the Bush administration.
If it is indeed criminal, sure. I'm not a blind partisan like you.Otherwise, you'd be insisting Congresswoman Pelosi and Congressman Rockefeller be similarly prosecuted because they were complicit in the enhanced interrogation techniques being employed.
You are a useless idiot who doesn't underrstand what he steals.You are a useful idiot in the left's attempts to mask low politics as high principle.
Ah, the idiocy of Yoni. tell me where I claimed a crime was committed.Ah, the arrogance of idiocy. Explain, first, what crimes Bybee and Yoo committed. Then, tell me how U. S. v. Parker and U. S. vs. Lee are relevant.
I'm not a common thief.Meh, you do the same but, you just run others ideas through that pea brain of yours.
It is absolutely an attempt to get credit for yourself. You havesome need to appear as if you wrote everything yourself, so you lie about it every time you steal someone else's work.I've never lied and, I readily admit that I steal content and post it to appear as if it's my own. I've explained in great detail why. But, it's not an attempt to get credit for the content...not that I care if you belive otherwise.
You're a liar, and of course my attacks get to you. Otherwise you wouldn't be whining about it so much trying to justify your stealing and lying.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 05-08-2009 at 12:49 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
