Printable View
[QUOTE=Esten]Gee, one mention of favoring more government involvement and I'm accused of possibly supporting communism. That's pretty funny![/QUOTE]Agreed. In the last two weeks I got screwed by a lawyer and had to pay estimated taxes, so I took it out on you.
Sorry to hear that. And I agree with you, the legal system in the US is in serious need of reform on many levels (abuse, costs, fairness, etc). That's another example of increased government involvement I would support (by involvement I don't necessarily mean ownership; in this case more regulation, policy change and enforcement). The issues here are too big and deep for anyone but the government to effectively tackle it, and then it would not be easy by any means. Unfortunately I do not see it on the horizon.
I hate to say it and I may be dead wrong, but we may be witnessing history. Obama may be, in front of our eyes, evolving into a President less effective than the infamous Jimmy 'shit for brains' Carter.
A few observations.
1) Advocating the stunningly stupid plan of raising taxes to spur an economic recovery.
2) Sounding like a third grade retard whenever the telepromptor is off.
3) Refusing to support the world´s condemnation of Iran's phoney election, but immediately supporting Chavez's corrupt buddy in Hondoras.
4) And my favorite, falling for the man made global warming nonsense when even a one celled amoeba can tell there is no science to support it.
I heard on the radio last week that his approval rating was still at 60 percent?
If you have something other than from the conservative tabloids (newsmax) please post it.
'Less effective that Jimmy Carter'
Sshyeah. I guess some areas may not be hit like an atomic explosion by the recovery package. I do not mean by jobs created or lost, but driving anywhere in the USA to witness the massive, efficient construction projects going on and can not help but wonder.
Or to see the repair work occuring for the USA's image from the Chicago Olympic Bid to the current Russia meeting to the G8 summit and meeting with Hugo Chavez.
Passing the Public Health insurance option will not occur without a seismic, permanent shift. No pain, no gain on that one but 1/6 of the American economy reformed.
I agree with Colonel Bud Day (Medal of Honor recipient)
I believe that the definition of torture is the infliction of physical pain.
Scaring the hell out of a subject by simulating drowning and/or using other enhanced interrogation techniques may be distasteful to the recipient and to the squeamish amongst you, but it is not physical pain.
By this definition, the USA is not a "torture nation".
However, by the liberal's definition, tickling somebody with a feather is torture, which permits them to endlessly decry our country as a "torture nation".
They're just wrong.
Wake up people. We're in a war. Our enemies have vowed to destroy us.
There's only one thing you can do with a rabid dog.
Thanks,
Jackson
This type of retoric will continue till the US wakes up and recognizes that they really FU*KED Up when they elected the most popular university professor as the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD. I'm hoping that we're currently on a three year glide path to getting rid of this clown. That said, in no way be surprised at anything this wild-ass liberal, inexperienced clown says in the next three years. Like the iceburg, 80% of this idiot is hidden below the surface. Stay tuned for more crazy statements from "Abomination". I'm guessing in the end most of his legacy will be easily un-done once he's gone. Viva la difference! Given enough rope he will soon be swinging from the gallows. Patience is the key to understanding. This soon will pass.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann
[QUOTE=Jackson]However, by the liberal's definition, tickling somebody with a feather is torture, which permits them to endlessly decry our country as a "torture nation".[/QUOTE]Well, what our President is doing to my country is scaring the hell out of me. Does that fall within the Liberal definition of torture.
We (USA USA USA) signed this agreement.
"For the purposes of this Convention, 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."
Taking nothing from Bud Day of course, but this is the legal definition we (USA USA USA) accepted when we signed this agreement. However as a tolerant liberal I of course advocate you having the right to believe as you do.
[QUOTE=Jackson]I agree with Colonel Bud Day (Medal of Honor recipient)
I believe that the definition of torture is the infliction of physical pain.
Scaring the hell out of a subject by simulating drowning and / or using other enhanced interrogation techniques may be distasteful to the recipient and to the squeamish amongst you, but it is not physical pain.
By this definition, the USA is not a "torture nation".
However, by the liberal's definition, tickling somebody with a feather is torture, which permits them to endlessly decry our country as a "torture nation".
They're just wrong.
Wake up people. We're in a war. Our enemies have vowed to destroy us.
There's only one thing you can do with a rabid dog.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]
Daddy, I am always amused when the liberals like to trot out the Geneva Convention. I am at a loss to understand how the current conflict (or past conflicts for that matter) have "rules". "Rules" we must follow but permit the opponent to ignore. I can assure you the people who gathered in a very civilized, secure, and peaceful venue to sign the convention had no idea what WAR is really about, as it is easy to impose "rules" on others when you are not the one doing the fighting. I would suppose under the Geneva Convention, such liberal blathering would be considered "torture" of conservatives.
The Geneva Convention, according to the Wikipedia summary "require[s] the ratifying parties to repress grave breaches of the conventions." Of course, that leaves somewhat open to interpretation of how far one can go before it's considered "real" (grave) torture prohibited by the convention.
As well, as the Wikipedia states, "Nearly all 200 countries of the world are 'signatory' nations, in that they have ratified these conventions." In addition, the Convention calls for prohibition against "taking of hostages; extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" and so on. But how many countries that we have problems with follow those rules either?
I am on the fence. I like the idea, as an ideal, that we should not "lower ourselves" to their level. But I also think that if there were truly need to do such things as waterboarding to get information that would save innocent and / or military lives, that it needs to be considered.
I would never be comfortable with "real" life-damaging or body-damaging torture, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for any jackass with his extreme views AND actions being a bit mentally perturbed in the act of trying to weed out the human garbage that he and his buddies represent.
I also know that the government is very hard to stop - that if something gets going it's too easy for the lines to get blurred. Humans all up and down the chain give it a certainty of something happening that takes things too far.
Ain't nothing black and white.
I say we do one of these sign and trade deals like the NBA. We can take Obama and cap n trade him for Chavez and still come in under the salary cap. Even Chavez can't possibly spend as recklessly as Obama and Nancy "Marsh Mouse" Pelosi. Plus, Chavez is Latino, a better bowler than Obama and likely has a better three point shot while liquored up. Doesn't smoke the cheap stuff either. Plus his girlfriends aren't ugly, mean spirited, racist transvestite looking drill sergeants with a landing strip.
In addition, the First Lady (who wasted half a mil on a date night to fricking NYC of all places) could probably be included in the deal and shipped to the WNBA to replace Lisa Leslie as the chic fashion plate that can no longer score at any level. Sarkozy's wife is WAY hotter anyway.
If Mrs Obama wants a date night, she should go back and see her husbands hometown in Kenya, where he was born.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Daddy, I am always amused when the liberals like to trot out the Geneva Convention. I am at a loss to understand how the current conflict (or past conflicts for that matter) have "rules". "Rules" we must follow but permit the opponent to ignore. I can assure you the people who gathered in a very civilized, secure, and peaceful venue to sign the convention had no idea what WAR is really about, as it is easy to impose "rules" on others when you are not the one doing the fighting. I would suppose under the Geneva Convention, such liberal blathering would be considered "torture" of conservatives.[/QUOTE]I am always amused when neocons like you are amused at liberals when we remind you that we are in violation of agreements that we as a country have signed. I am further amused when you express outrage when the hajis do something that causes great loss of life against us. After all there are no rules right?
To me it's simple, we (USA) signed it, as signaturies (sp) and supposed good guys we should honor it. If we feel as a country these rules we agreed to are no longer useful or valid than before we break them we should announce our departure from them.
Personally I oppose torture on two key points, most of the reading I have done tells me that except in very limited cases it's not effective, and two I feel (not logical I know) that my country really is a better country and we should be above it.
I'm liberal leaning but certainly not a "bleeding heart" as I have been called over and over again by folks here. Torture works as a tactical tool, IE. You catch some guy and he and his playmates are about to commit some gross act of violence and you need IMMEDIATE information to not only save military life but the lives of non-combatants then giving him some emergency dental work or better yet giving emergency surgury to somebody while he watches most likely will give you info that you need. However as a stratigic tool it's generally worthless, it made the Bushies FEEL better that we were punishing the rag heads without benefit of trial, but as far as useful info not so much. In any event the point is moot, we signed the agreement and we are in violation for breaking it simple as that.
As long as we are member nations then no we shouldn't use it, if we choose to remove ourselves from these agreements that would be a different story. Then I would have to decide if this is still the country that shares my values or not but at least as a nation we would regain our integrity.
As always though I respect your right to believe as you do, while engaging in spirited debate, not suggesting that you are un american for advocating an anarchist position that clearly is in violation of our laws.