Can you at least make sheer supposition as to what national good was achieved out of torturing? So that this analogy remotely makes sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryReardon
Printable View
Can you at least make sheer supposition as to what national good was achieved out of torturing? So that this analogy remotely makes sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryReardon
Waterboarding doesn't even come close to meeting any definition of torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolyo85
And let's not forget, it wasn't used on uniformed combatants of an opposing army. It was used on
terrorists.
Start with the fact that waterboarding is not torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by xbuzzerx
Look up the facts: it was used to obtain information that thwarted future attacks.
No I'm not going to do your work for you.
The attitude of the American public toward the terrorists can be summed up by a woman's letter to the editor during the 2nd gulf war: she wrote, among other things that she "didn't care what they did with or to the terrorists."
Only bleeding heart liberals get worked up over what happens to those savages.
Yes, it does qualify resoundly as torture, and U.S. courts and legal experts as well as John McCain and President Obama have all said that it is as well, as does the U.N.Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryReardon
You're just making things up out of thin air.
I'm not going to go prove your claim for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryReardon
Could this possibly come across more superior and xenophobic?
There is a reason why civilians don't get to make those decisions. Because they don't care about politics, relationships with the rest of the world or even justice. They are emotional and want retribution. That you think it's some "bleeding heart liberals" affectation to respect human rights, shows how far the right has fallen in this country.
Senator John McCain, a Republican, a veteran, and an ex-POW, disagrees with you. He'd like to remind you that the US tried and executed Japanese soldiers for using waterboarding in the post WW2 war trials.Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryReardon
Sometime between 1945 and 2004, many conservatives seem to have decided that waterboarding is not an offence punishable by death.Quote:
"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans," McCain said during a news conference.
But oh, how far this thread has traveled...
So what DOES count as torture? Vivisection sans anesthetic? Or is it slowly pulling out all the intestines though the penis? What counts as torture in your book?
On topic: I don't see anything unreasonable with any of the executive orders. In my mind, some didn't go far enough.
Waterboarding is essentially the far more intense, modern version of what we used to call the Chinese Water "Torture". Sorry it is a form of psychological torture. The technique was developed to use for training our own people what it is like to experience torture.
People who strap bombs around little children and send them off to commit suicide and kill other, hardly qualify as 'human'..Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolyo85
John McCain is an embarrassment to himself andQuote:
Originally Posted by andysayshi
the uniform he once wore.
And psychological torture is somehow okay, Stardreamer? Why should it be considered any less severe than a physically life-threatening one?
A technique designed to be used in lieu physical torture but with the same mental effect is in itself a form of torture. Mind over matter.
I'm sorry were you interpreting my post to say I approved of it? That was not the intent, I was simply trying to emphasize that it IS torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by mightbe
No, actually, they qualify as fully human, due to the fact that we live in the first world and here everyone has the same rights regardless of their crime. Reject that and you become the same as those you despise - they also think you're not human and deserve to have exploding children thrown at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryReardonPeople who strap bombs around little children and send them off to commit suicide and kill other, hardly qualify as 'human'..Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolyo85
Also, learn to use the quote function.
AS usual ... kill the messenger, ignore the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryReardon
It's clear you're on a rant and not interested in an actual discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryReardon
Yeah, the Republican motto seems to be "ugh, we have those pesky laws, so let's invent reasons why we can just ignore them!"
So yeah.... then we had these executive orders and proposed legislative efforts.
!oops! did I wonder off topic?
Unfortunately while many of these items seem appropriate. I think you will see litigation preventing the implementation of many gun laws such as tracking, repetitive registry, and the reporting of mental illness as a prelude to weapons removal will be opposed by the left and the right.
Agreed. I doubt more than half of yesterday's proposals will make it into law.
And therein lies the real problem with firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by andysayshi
Wrong as usual. The terrorists are sub-human animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolyo85
I've actually never yet put anyone on CE&P on ignore because... there's really no point in coming to this area at all if we're just all going to ignore the people with politics that differ at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryReardon
However, there's differing politics and the potential for possible discussion, and there's just being here to spew, not listen, not respond to points, and spew. And be off topic with it, no less.
So, with that, first.
And so are people who think they can decide who is human and who isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryReardon
Their religion makes them strap bombs to their children. Your religion makes people deny others the right to marry the one they love, or women to choose what to do with their bodies. There is no such thing as sub-human animals. There is culture and upbringing. If you think you would be any different if you were dealt the hand they were, then you are truly on the path to the Darwin Award.
Reading this thread. :dead:Quote:
Originally Posted by mightbe
it's sad how folks here - some intelligent - some not so much
plug and play pictures of children w/Bush in instances that have nothing to do with Obama's kid n play thingy the other day
like did I see Ted Kennedy in one picture ?
doing something bipartisan is not the same as demonization
andy - you're the one i'm most perplexed by with this incredibly off point comparison
the others is same bullshit diff day with the usual numb nuts chiming in
a dark day for CE+P when one of the reasonable turn
Bush using kids in a photo op and Obama using kids in a photo op--- completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by chance1
One is good, the other is an outrage. According to you.
I don't agree. You've characterised Obama as doing something "gross - pathetic - unfortunate - cynical" by having kids at his show.Quote:
Originally Posted by chance1
The point is that it is absolutely standard operating procedure at a Bill signing, or the majority of other Presidential announcements. It took me less than 3 minutes to find 5 examples of Bush signing something with kids on hand. I can easily find more with Clinton and Bush 1. The changes being enacted by Obama are motivated by, and aimed toward, the protection of children.
I just don't understand what you're criticising. There is nothing here that hasn't been happening in US politics for 20 years.
I suppose since the situation was that those children wrote letters to the President asking him to do something and he invited them to be on the stage when he did something then;
Obama hides behind soldiers when he salutes them by putting them on camera at the state of the Union;
Obama hid behind women when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter act in Lilly Ledbetter's presence;
Obama hid behind Native Americans when he signed the American Apology Resolution.
I go go on all night for every thing he has signed. It is traditional for those who inspired legislation or executive orders to be present when that mantle is taken up officially via signature by the President.
As I have said before: Do conservatives really only have this weak, non-issue of an argument?
That's precisely how I feel. How nice must it be for the worst of your fears to be someone you have this little to get outraged about that you wind up talking about how he appeared in a photo op.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayHawk
Well, good if you ignore the anti-gay hatred and campaign of bigotry he initiated.Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryReardon
And the holding of people as prisoners indefinitely without charge or trial.
And the torture.
And the wiretapping of phones without warrant.
And the abduction of foreign nationals on foreign soil without the consent of their governments.
And the establishment of extra-judicial prisons not subject to the laws of any country.
And his failure to come to the aid of disaster victims.
And the launching of a major war on the basis of lies.
Except for that, he was more-or-less a decent person.
I've become pretty much immune to your personal attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by chance1
I'm not sure that you appreciate that they say much, much more about you than the people you attack.
It is the pope attacking Galileo. You cannot respond to the facts, so you go after the messenger personally. What matters is not the intelligence of a poster, but the validity of his points.
I'm just not clear on why it is so right for a white man and a Republican to include children at signing ceremonies, but so heinous for a black man and a Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by chance1
Can you explain this?
Please explain to us why it is "off point" for andy (or me, for that matter) to compare Bush's use of children at signing ceremonies with Obama's. How do you justify your double standard?Quote:
Originally Posted by chance1
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryReardon
Apparently the US thought it did when the Japanese used it on US soldiers in WWII.
You can't have it both ways.
You put your finger right on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by chance1
But perspective is everything and from where we're all standing, the picture looks completely different than what you are seeing apparently.
We're all left wondering why you just started babbling at the end of your post?
^ I gave the obvious and clear reason for the diff
U chose not to read it or are uninterested in the truth
Your serve not mine
^ Oh. Like only you are capable of 'seeing' and 'understanding' the truth...yeah...that's be it. Everyone is just too stupid or disinterested in the 'truth' Jeezus. Rolls eyes.
You gave no reasonable or clear or obvious difference. All you gave was your own silly spin.
And a bizarre post ender.
Check and Mate.
That's how he operates. Insult, vague claim, insult, claim that the first claim was not vague and whoever didn't get it is an idiot OR - more likely - lying to serve his agenda. Repeat as nauseum.Quote:
Originally Posted by rareboy
Don't you mean add until nauseous??Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolyo85
It was supposed to say "AD nauseum" and yeah, that's what it means :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JayHawk
I know what it was supposed to mean... it was just a rare opportunity to fuck with both you and chance in one post. It is like placing letters in 'words with friends' that results in two or three different words.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolyo85
I know you want to fuck me :pQuote:
Originally Posted by JayHawk
Chance when you start equating what you say or how you perceive things as "the truth", you begin to sound insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by chance1
I mean that literally, and clinically. Not as an insult.
Not a great way to get your points across in lieu of actually explaining your position-- hard as that may be to do in haiku format.
Bush Jr and his party ran on making gays second class citizens for his 2004 reelection campaign. Don't give me that crap about how he's a good man.
Hhahaha, dumb dumb dumb.
Although I will not wade into the cesspool going on around this, it is worth pointing out that all of those things had to actually do with children and education.Quote:
Originally Posted by andysayshi
And murdering children has nothing to do with children?
And children are somehow off topic when the impetus is school shootings?Quote:
Originally Posted by JB3
I sincerely don't get this distinction of one being an outrage and one not.
- - - Updated - - -
I was not commenting on the contention that he 'used' those children. All I was stating was that all of those pictured events dealt directly with children, which is why they were there.Quote:
Originally Posted by xbuzzerx
How do school shootings not involve children?Quote:
Originally Posted by JB3
See my response to xbuzzerx. I was not making any comment at all on the Obama picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolyo85
- - - Updated - - -
I wasn't saying anything at all about that picture and the signing event. I was merely stating a fact about those pictures of Bush provided as 'counter evidence'.Quote:
Originally Posted by xbuzzerx
Okay. But those pictures weren't shown to imply the kids were just grabbed out of a crowd for a bill that had nothing to do with kids. The discussion was about Chance claiming it's an absolute outrage to have kids at the signing of the bill. None of us really knows why... even now, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by JB3
I can understand his point, but I don't agree with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by xbuzzerx