Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by DrunkCajun, Dec 5, 2005.
Finally, a Republican Sees the Light!
McCain's a Republican in name only. Much as Zell Miller was a Democrat in name only.
This thread is merely sour grapes. Please refrain from going insane in '06
"It's not about who they are. It's about who we are." - John McCain
McCain, 2008! Woo! We need someone reasonable and sincere in office.
And laughably, apparently Kerry still thinks people care about his opinion. Face it, you lost to Bush for God's sake. You were so bad, in other words, the US public decided to vote for someone the majority of them hated just so you wouldn't get elected. Give up and go home already.
Red herrings abound in the very first post! I love it! Classic Smeg!
Torture is good, right Smeg?
Did anyone really read all of that?
Not it's not. But I don't want the last resort option to be taken from us.
Anyway, if torture didn't work, why did McCain insert a a "ticking timebomb" clause? Does that mean that it actually does work??? Of course it works. Anybody can be broken. Whether or not you get the information you're after is another thing but that's why we leave such things up to people trained to do interrogations.
But I guess that you'd rather not have that option open woudl you? Even if it could be that last half of a percent chance to stop a nuke from killing you and your family, you'd rather die feeling good that you saved one man to sacrifice millions
Do some reading and you'll start to understand why I have reservations about giving one human being carte-blanche power over another human being with absolutely no repercussions.
And Abu Ghraib has shown we have a great record of being able to keep that power in check, right?
I need someone to define 'torture' for me. Where is the line drawn between making someone uncomfortable enough to give up information and torturing them?
Is blaring loud rock music all the time torture?
What about bright lights?
Women in bras and panties?
Slapping them around?
What is torture?
This thread is torture.
Perhaps we should first have the government tell us why they need secret prisons scattered about the world in countries with no restrictions on torture. If sleep deprivation is all they're doing and it's not "cruel or unusual punishment" as defined by our constitution, why not do it here at home?
We don't have them here at home because 49% of the people here are whining liberals (Democratic party/ACLU, etc).
Andarcel and I duked it out on the WoW.net forums already over this one. At what point is it ethical to kill one man to save another? Kill one to save two? Kill one to save a dozen?
Of course, in this case, the point is moot, because we're not talking about even the strict utilitarianism of the aforementioned situation. In your world, it's okay to kill one person to possibly get some information that possibly might be credible, that possibly could be acted on to possibly save an undetermined amount of unknown people's lives.
And that's just scary. :cheesy:
Could it be that we don't want a "Spineless, tree-hugging, welfare-state-supporting, terrorist sympathizer/liberal" doing everything possible to defeat this country by preventing us from prosecuting this war to the fullest extent? Something about we really don't want the ACLU and it's assorted anti-American ilk to insert their defeatism and surrender-monkey ideals into the mix where some pissant leftist judge can order us to cease and desist thereby ensuring that our hands are tied. Just like what happened in Vietnam.
No, I think it's more likely we don't have them at home because the government is doing things that it knows would be considered illegal and unconstitutional in this country.
As it is we have a prison system where anal rape is nearly a guarantee. You don't see the whole country up in arms about that fact, which leads me to believe they're not as liberal and crazy about it all as you might seem to think.
Perhaps you can comment on the regularity with which inmates can be exposed to rape and sexual assault in the US prison system, as I seem to recall that at some point you worked as a guard in a prison--could be mistaken there. If so, and I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me, as I'm sure it's blown out of proportion in the media. Still, the fact that it happens at all and you don't see your 49% marching down Pennsylvania Avenue over it leads me to believe you're exaggerating to change the subject away from the fact that the government may be engaging in illegal activities.
Don't you mean the fullest extent, regardless of the law, human rights, and the US Constitution? I know that's what you mean, but perhaps you should go ahead and say it.
Don't you find it ironic that in your bloodthirsty fight to "protect freedom, law, human rights, and the US Constitution" you are forced to disregard and destroy all of those in the process?
And Smeg, you should know that my "realm" is a sarcastic reference to a rant Bortaz unleashed on me a while back. And if you didn't, now you do.
Well, that's sure interesting, saying "we don't use torture, but we're going to veto any bill that bans it." Looks like someone's really got something to hide!
You are correct that I was a prison employee. While anal rape does occur, it's not as widespread as some would have you believe. Prisons are violent places, filled with the scum of society. Bad things happen there, but it's usually to bad people. I can only speak for the Texas prison system, which is the 2nd largest in the world, iirc.
As to people not having a liberal bias regarding convicted felons: Explain why so many people are trying to save the life of Tookie Williams, who killed at least 4 innocent people with a shotgun, and bragged about the gurgling sounds they made when they died. Not to mention the thousands of other people whose lives have been ruined by the Crips, which he started.
EDIT: Look up Willam Wayne Justice, and Ruiz v. Estelle (I think that's it), and you'll see what a liberal judge can do to a prison system. I lived through the changes caused by this lawsuit, and by this judge for 13 years. It made the lives of the convicted criminals better, and put the lives of every prison employee in texas in jeopardy on a daily basis.
We're talking about two different things, Bortaz.
You're talking about people protesting against the death penalty.
I'm talking about the government finding loopholes in the Constitution in order to be able to use torture.
Very different things. Are you perhaps suggesting that we should not only be putting inmates to death, but torturing them for information as well? (just pokin fun)
I figured it was blown out of proportion, but given how violent and nasty a place prisons are, I found it funny that the claims in here were that the US government couldn't possibly run a proper prison in the country because of the ALCU and the 49% liberal country that would stop them (and by the way, we're taking that 51% rule pretty seriously around here, huh? Keep in mind that for Constitutional issues we're talking about a 2/3 majority, not 51%).
So I ask again, why can the US government not detain and hold these prisoners on US soil?
Maybe we feel that it's worth putting the lives of millions at risk to save the principles on which their country is founded, for which generations have devoted - and sometimes lost - their lives. But of course, the important thing is winning the fight. Who cares if we lose what we were fighting for in the process?
You lost in Vietnam because the hippies wouldn't let you commit enough atrocities? Listening to you is a learning experience.
Just like they say "claims of us having secret foreign gulags are absurd. But we'll neither confirm nor deny". How stupid do they think the American public is? Well, stupid enough to vote for Bush a second time (sorry, I mean a first time).
Clearly McCain is biased. Just because he was tortured in Vietnam, he thinks it's a bad thing. Someone like Cheney on the other hand has a more objective point of view. Five Vietnam war draft exemptions allowed him to maintain a certain distance from the subject and develop a more balanced perspective.