Just for a change of pace

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/pages...obay-cases-eng

I know...a bunch of leftists. They are lying. The US doesnt kidnap anyone without due process and without just cause.

Do I lose my nomination for post of the year dear?

ive missed you antitrust!

Kisses. I will check back later today.

Chuck, i know you missed me in this section.

At least you are willing to engage on the topics at hand and dont just fake intellectual superiority as a defense.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Didn't this same amnesty group criticize Britain for a human rights report condemning Iraq and Sadam saying it was a propaganda tool used to go to war or was I dreaming that?

It's coming back now. Didn't that same report include footage of Iraqi political prisoners being forced to jump from a 3rd story roof to break legs and testimony of the rape of wives and daughters as a coercion technique. But yea let's not let that out. The group is more left than the the Soros Foundation. Sad cause they weren't always that way.

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042002818.html

Oh by the way the techniques worked....

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042002818.html

Oh by the way the techniques worked....

Not to be confrontational on this exact note either, but I can't just take that for what this former Bush speechwriter says they are. That's like asking me to take Cheney's word for it.

Now, before you go say "well it's in the memos," let's also point out that given my serious, very serious, issues with that administration's honesty and given the fact that the memos justifying torture are being ripped apart by scholars all over because they use pathetic reasoning to justify it, sorry if I don't immediately freak out in celebration that this actually provided actionable intelligence on specific threats.

Sure the LA Tower threat. But on the flip side, a Polish friend of mine got mad at me the other day and put his hands around my neck. To get him to stop, I sang like a bird about my plan to overthrow the government of Poland and turn it into a permanent gay vacation destination, a Polish gayDisney, if you will.

Now, because I was so foolish in succumbing, the Polish government has "actionable intelligence" to foil that threat of mine. Damnit!!!

See, it's all in who's telling you what. So, sorry if I'm not quick to jump on the former Bush speechwriter's claim that this was all on the up-and-up and that it was effective. Can't think of any other reasons he would do that, outside of a penchant for being honest about everything, right?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Not to be confrontational on this exact note either, but I can't just take that for what this former Bush speechwriter says they are. That's like asking me to take Cheney's word for it.

Now, before you go say "well it's in the memos," let's also point out that given my serious, very serious, issues with that administration's honesty and given the fact that the memos justifying torture are being ripped apart by scholars all over because they use pathetic reasoning to justify it, sorry if I don't immediately freak out in celebration that this actually provided actionable intelligence on specific threats.

Sure the LA Tower threat. But on the flip side, a Polish friend of mine got mad at me the other day and put his hands around my neck. To get him to stop, I sang like a bird about my plan to overthrow the government of Poland and turn it into a permanent gay vacation destination, a Polish gayDisney, if you will.

Now, because I was so foolish in succumbing, the Polish government has "actionable intelligence" to foil that threat of mine. Damnit!!!

See, it's all in who's telling you what. So, sorry if I'm not quick to jump on the former Bush speechwriter's claim that this was all on the up-and-up and that it was effective. Can't think of any other reasons he would do that, outside of a penchant for being honest about everything, right?

that is a horrible comparison. If you had already succeeded in turing another country into a gay disney.. than it would be a more honest comparison. This man who gave up the info after waterboarding also succeeded in bringing down the World Trade Centers, if you remember. Any intelligence that was gathered at helped foil a plan to bring down the Liberty Tower should be celebrated. Somehow the liberals in this country can make claims about how that is a bad thing (like you just did with your analogy).

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Not to be confrontational on this exact note either, but I can't just take that for what this former Bush speechwriter says they are. That's like asking me to take Cheney's word for it.

Now, before you go say "well it's in the memos," let's also point out that given my serious, very serious, issues with that administration's honesty and given the fact that the memos justifying torture are being ripped apart by scholars all over because they use pathetic reasoning to justify it, sorry if I don't immediately freak out in celebration that this actually provided actionable intelligence on specific threats.

Sure the LA Tower threat. But on the flip side, a Polish friend of mine got mad at me the other day and put his hands around my neck. To get him to stop, I sang like a bird about my plan to overthrow the government of Poland and turn it into a permanent gay vacation destination, a Polish gayDisney, if you will.

Now, because I was so foolish in succumbing, the Polish government has "actionable intelligence" to foil that threat of mine. Damnit!!!

See, it's all in who's telling you what. So, sorry if I'm not quick to jump on the former Bush speechwriter's claim that this was all on the up-and-up and that it was effective. Can't think of any other reasons he would do that, outside of a penchant for being honest about everything, right?

Which is exactly the problem with this issue. You dont believe the source because of a relationship with the administration yet who else is there to know if the info is correct? Therefore regarding the whole issue it is impossible to reach a true and valid conclusion. The gray areas far outweigh the black and white.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

that is a horrible comparison. If you had already succeeded in turing another country into a gay disney.. than it would be a more honest comparison. This man who gave up the info after waterboarding also succeeded in bringing down the World Trade Centers, if you remember. Any intelligence that was gathered at helped foil a plan to bring down the Liberty Tower should be celebrated. Somehow the liberals in this country can make claims about how that is a bad thing (like you just did with your analogy).

I'm just saying that it doesn't mean it was actually going to happen. It doesn't mean it was close to happening, and therefore any intelligence was actionable. It just means they thought about it.

Also, don't forget that we had intelligence about them planning to strike in the United States too, remember that? Just saying. Having intelligence doesn't mean we stop anything necessarily, it just means we know about some portion of the plan.

And regardless, I don't recall having ever been a really serious 'torture never works' type. Maybe I have and you'll find it for me, but I certainly don't remember ever holding a steadfast view on it. I'm obviously suspicious of it, which was the point of my post to Chuck...that I'm dubious of these claims given the source, especially if that source was busy trying to find a way to justify torturing people, you kinda get the feeling they'd have an incentive to say that it works...whether it does or not, right? That's not partisan stuff, that's simple common sense.

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm just saying that it doesn't mean it was actually going to happen. It doesn't mean it was close to happening, and therefore any intelligence was actionable. It just means they thought about it.

Also, don't forget that we had intelligence about them planning to strike in the United States too, remember that? Just saying. Having intelligence doesn't mean we stop anything necessarily, it just means we know about some portion of the plan.

And regardless, I don't recall having ever been a really serious 'torture never works' type. Maybe I have and you'll find it for me, but I certainly don't remember ever holding a steadfast view on it. I'm obviously suspicious of it, which was the point of my post to Chuck...that I'm dubious of these claims given the source, especially if that source was busy trying to find a way to justify torturing people, you kinda get the feeling they'd have an incentive to say that it works...whether it does or not, right? That's not partisan stuff, that's simple common sense.

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

lol I want nothing to do with Muslim dicks and that is not what a was refering to with my post before. I want American rapists and child molesters to have their dicks chopped off.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

By the way, with your viewpoint... you MUST be pro life and against the death penalty also, correct?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

By the way, with your viewpoint... you MUST be pro life and against the death penalty also, correct?

This is a nice try, but no, since only killing actual , aware people bothers me.

So, I'm anti-death penalty and pro-choice.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

This is a nice try, but no, since only killing actual , aware people bothers me.

So, I'm anti-death penalty and pro-choice.

So Gacy should still be around?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

So Gacy should still be around?

Being anti-death penalty is not a malleable position for me.

With that bit of information, you should be able to answer this question and any other future examples that may come to mind.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

This is a nice try, but no, since only killing actual , aware people bothers me.

So, I'm anti-death penalty and pro-choice.

Conservatives and liberals seem very hypocritical on these issues.

If conservatives believe all life is sacred... than putting the worst of the worst criminals to death should be a no no.

Of course it should be the opposite case with liberals.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Being anti-death penalty is not a malleable position for me.

With that bit of information, you should be able to answer this question and any other future examples that may come to mind.

I would be able to answer all future examples that may come to mind if I knew what the word malleable meant.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I would be able to answer all future examples that may come to mind if I knew what the word malleable meant.

Changeable, basically. My anti-death penalty view is non-negotiable. As much as I understand the impulse for certain people, trust me I do, it's about the principle for me. It's about the fact that you be better than other people who do bad things. Killing them in a nicer way does not count as "better" to me.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Conservatives and liberals seem very hypocritical on these issues.

If conservatives believe all life is sacred... than putting the worst of the worst criminals to death should be a no no.

Of course it should be the opposite case with liberals.

I'm perfectly happy with my thinking on it, because if I don't actually believe that an aborted zygote/fetus/Wev is a person, then I don't create a moral contradiction by my indifference to its not existing any more. So I'm not actually contradicting myself.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Being anti-death penalty is not a malleable position for me.

With that bit of information, you should be able to answer this question and any other future examples that may come to mind.

What a beautiful world it would be. Gacy, Bundy, McVeigh etc etc all alive and well. We can't torture them either so what do we do? Pull a Hillary and just refuse to talk to them. Or ignore them by focussing on the 'amazing caribean dancers'?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

What a beautiful world it would be. Gacy, Bundy, McVeigh etc etc all alive and well. We can't torture them either so what do we do? Pull a Hillary and just refuse to talk to them. Or ignore them by focussing on the 'amazing caribean dancers'?

I just don't presume to be the arbiter of determining exactly what somebody has to do to make themselves unsuitable for living, or in other words, suitable for us to kill.

I don't believe in eye for an eye punishment. It's perfectly your choice to, but I'm just not of the mind that we should be running around killing people to prove...that killing people is wrong.

Call me illogical.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you really think that depriving terrorists of sleep to extract information out of them is a big deal and a bad thing?

No, I don't think it's a big deal or a bad thing.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Changeable, basically. My anti-death penalty view is non-negotiable. As much as I understand the impulse for certain people, trust me I do, it's about the principle for me. It's about the fact that you be better than other people who do bad things. Killing them in a nicer way does not count as "better" to me.



I'm perfectly happy with my thinking on it, because if I don't actually believe that an aborted zygote/fetus/Wev is a person, then I don't create a moral contradiction by my indifference to its not existing any more. So I'm not actually contradicting myself.

fair enough

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I just don't presume to be the arbiter of determining exactly what somebody has to do to make themselves unsuitable for living, or in other words, suitable for us to kill.

I don't believe in eye for an eye punishment. It's perfectly your choice to, but I'm just not of the mind that we should be running around killing people to prove...that killing people is wrong.

Call me illogical.

Not trying to pick on you because I respect your anti-death penalty and pro-choice views (I'm pseudo pro-choice also). BUT.

How come liberals think it is okay to kill your unborn fetus with an abortion, but if a drunk driver killed a pregnant woman... that should count as a double murder??