A Simple Challenge to Bruce Fealk (or Anyone): A Game of Chess for Charity.

I do not accept, Chetly (0.00 / 0)

Do you think this was merely about a challenge, Chetly?  You continue to miss the point.  I may have to stop this insane exchange.  You don't seem to possess any ability to reason and think logically.

I don't play chess at all and chess is not in the same ballpark with torture, Chetly.

---

by: joeshead @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 05:43:50 AM CDT

not surprised you don't play (0.00 / 0)

So you only engage in games of violence, rather than wit?

Is there a game of intelligence that you do you play?

The point of the offer obviously wasn't your strawman argument that I compared chess to torture - the point of the counter-challenge was to offer you an outlet for your frustrations that you and I could more easily and more appropriately engage in.  Kind of like in War Games when the computer asks the student to play a game chess instead of global thermonuclear war.  The latter is rather uncivilized - chess is not.

You may surrogate any member of the Oakland Democratic Executive Committee who plays chess if you choose, or an adequate game of intelligence you do play.

You might try learning chess - it might add some order and control to your own logic and reason.

---

by: chetly @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 08:26:31 AM CDT

Chetly (0.00 / 0)

I don't know what game of violence you think I engage in. I think I have shown myself to be a worthy opponent.  

I took on an 8 term incumbent Congressman and outwitted his entire staff and the Congressman.  I think that should suffice.  Thanks for the offer though.

---

by: joeshead @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 08:41:11 AM CDT

Gary Petes took on the 8 term incumbent, not you (0.00 / 0)

You think Bruce Fealk defeated Joe Knollenberg?

That is delusional.

You barely outwitted Trent Wisecup, at best, and found a few minutes of fame - that was the only mistake the Knollenberg campaign made in handling you, and it was a year before the election with little consequence.  There's a reason Gary avoided you like a plague during the later campaign ... you would have cost him votes.  You probably did cost him votes.  But even if you didn't - you didn't win the election.  Obama won it - Peters avoided losing it (there's much to be said about avoiding losing when the cards are in your favor) - and Bruce Fealk was as close to a non-factor in the election as I can imagine.  Good at self-promotion though.

I'd add you to the PR mix of any campaign and have no concerns or qualms about you being in it. In most situations, I'd think your presence to help the R candidate.

Your game of violence is waterboarding. You are an advocate of violence.

---

by: chetly @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 14:53:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Chetly, there is a young Democrats softball game though (0.00 / 0)

I think it's next weekend.  It will be the Young Democrats vs. the Young Republicans.  I'll be there.

---

by: joeshead @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 11:58:49 AM CDT

OMG Chetly (0.00 / 0)

You think I'm a proponent of waterboarding.  That is the most perverse theory you could have come up with.  

I think with that one I will have to ban myself from carrying on any conversation with you Chetly.  

You have gone over the edge.  You were the proponent saying it wasn't torture.  I was merely suggesting you be waterboarded to prove the point that it is torture.  Of course you felt the need to put numerous conditions on the challenge, which only proved to me that you are just another hypocritical Republican/conservative.  

---

by: joeshead @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 15:25:40 PM CDT

Your own Logic (0.00 / 0)

You have proposed waterboarding me.

Therefore, you are a proponent of waterboarding.

Wait - that sounds familiar.

I never said "it wasn't torture," I said that the specific actions you cite to Bush/Cheney didn't rise to the level of war crimes.  You've followed up by saying that there is an equivalence of all waterboarding, no matter the level, scope, context, or impending danger, and that all waterboarding is torture and all torture is a war crime.  I pointed out that if this equivalence is true, then everyone from Pelosi to O'Bama is also guilty, but that their complicity and silence at the time suggests that context really does matter and your equivalence is false.  You prefer to define the world in the simpler black-white terms, with no shades of gray - no fact dependent examinations, and it is therefore you that have taken the extreme position.  You then twist my words and everyone's words to fit into your boxes, even where they don't apply.

If the world were only as neat as you characterize it.

---

by: chetly @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 19:56:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I proposed waterboarding you (0.00 / 0)

to prove a point, that all waterboarding, even the mildest form imaginable, such as Erich Muller underwent, are torture.  Your theory of levels of waterboarding is absurd, Chetly.  You've been watching way too much 24 on television.  I probably should remind you that it's fiction, Chetly.

You put condition after condition on your participation, which I anticipated you would do from the start and you didn't disappoint me.

Impending danger does not justify torture and experts in interrogation have testified under oath that even then it doesn't work.  

At least Erich Muller had the integrity to man up and put his money where his mouth was and then admitted that waterboarding is torture, no question about it.  

It's not just the waterboarding, Chetly.  There are several other forms of mistreatment we engaged in both before and after prisoners were waterboarded, so for you to defend torture of any kind just shows what you think of American values and our system of justice.

---

by: joeshead @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 04:22:04 AM CDT