07 Nov 05
2 edits
First, please read the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/07/bush.torture.ap/index.html
So Bush says "We Do Not Torture".
Then he makes statements about being AGAINST Congress for trying to pass legislation to outlaw and end torture.
Then we find out Dick Cheney is heading up legislation to end torture, but hang on now, with an exemption for the CIA?!
So Bush says "We Do Not Torture".
Then Bush says he's against torture, but he doesn't want to outlaw or ban it.
Then Bush says he wants to ban torture, but make the CIA exempt from US laws covering torture.
Everybody got that?
Even Clinton would be proud of that one.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by wibClinton would be ashamed.
First, please read the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/07/bush.torture.ap/index.html
So Bush says "We Do Not Torture".
Then he makes statements about being AGAINST Congress for trying to pass legislation to outlaw and end torture.
Then we find out Dick Cheney is heading up legislation to end torture, but hang on now, with an exemption ...[text shortened]... m US laws covering torture.
Everybody got that?
Even Clinton would be proud of that one.
07 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by wibok leaving your "theoretical" torture is always bad world and entering reality...there may be a time one day when nuclear or other massive theats are being posed within the U.S. and there would have to be an exception for the president only to use torture. That should be the only time it is ever authorized. But of course in your theoretical world even if you had someone in custody who knew something about a nuclear threat inside the U.S. you would say, "nope, doesn't matter, we can't do anything to him"...there is a difference between theory (you) and reality (what a president must deal with).
First, please read the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/07/bush.torture.ap/index.html
So Bush says "We Do Not Torture".
Then he makes statements about being AGAINST Congress for trying to pass legislation to outlaw and end torture.
Then we find out Dick Cheney is heading up legislation to end torture, but hang on now, with an exemption ...[text shortened]... m US laws covering torture.
Everybody got that?
Even Clinton would be proud of that one.
yes clinton would be so ashamed, the man who pardoned mark rich, the man who lied under oath.....what a great man.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by newdad27Here we go again.
ok leaving your "theoretical" torture is always bad world and entering reality...there may be a time one day when nuclear or other massive theats are being posed within the U.S. and there would have to be an exception for the president only to use torture. That should be the only time it is ever authorized. But of course in your theoretical world even i ...[text shortened]... be so ashamed, the man who pardoned mark rich, the man who lied under oath.....what a great man.
...Theoretical world... muslim terrorists threatening our lawns... full nude bars... torture for the side of good is good... I'm a giant tool... muslims are evil and bad... we should kill them all and cut off their ears... my child is going to be just as hate-filled as I am... those white sheet guys sure sound nice... Bush administration can do no wrong... sun shines out their butt... etc.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by newdad27Reality? You just substituted one theoretical world for another. Instead of the "torture is bad" theory, you profess the "torture will be necessary" theory - and it is every bit as theoretical.
ok leaving your "theoretical" torture is always bad world and entering reality...
07 Nov 05
5 edits
Originally posted by newdad27Newdad, perhaps we could tone down that Limbaugh'ish straw man rant of yours and focus on the point. Bush's double speak.
ok leaving your "theoretical" torture is always bad world and entering reality...there may be a time one day when nuclear or other massive theats are being posed within the U.S. and there would have to be an exception for the president only to use torture. That should be the only time it is ever authorized. But of course in your theoretical world even i ...[text shortened]... be so ashamed, the man who pardoned mark rich, the man who lied under oath.....what a great man.
The issue being dicsussed by Bush is torture, but the flim-flamming and dare I say it "waffling" from Bush is surprising considering how adamant he is about being a "straight shooter" and a plain talker. Remember all of that campaign rhetoric he spouted?
Bush can barely speak out of one side of his mouth, he definitely shouldn't try two.
So why is Bush doing the old verbal two-step with torture?
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by Algernontorture use in one "specific" example, not in theory.
Reality? You just substituted one theoretical world for another. Instead of the "torture is bad" theory, you profess the "torture will be necessary" theory - and it is every bit as theoretical.
07 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by wibto you "all day posting" people, if one does not disagree with every thought, action, idea, etc of this admin. you are a far right radical. I'm not, i voted for Gore and several dems b4 and since. I know, though, it is hard for most of U to look at anything political in an objective way. If i were pres i would want an exception in case a "specific" situation occured where there was a member of a cell in the us captured who had info on a nuclear disaster about to take place. That would prob be the ONLY exception but you can't say you would just sit on your hands if that took place. That is what it appears the pres. is asking for, an exception that would take place only under certain circumstances. But since some don't believe anything Bush says most will assume Bush just wants to go around having prisoners tortured. I just choose not to think radically, rather logically.
Newdad, perhaps we could tone down that Limbaugh'ish straw man rant of yours and focus on the point. Bush's double speak.
The issue being dicsussed by Bush is torture, but the flim-flamming and dare I say it "waffling" from Bush is surprising considering how adamant he is about being a "straight shooter" and a plain talker. Remember all of that camp ...[text shortened]... he definitely shouldn't try two.
So why is Bush doing the old verbal two-step with torture?
07 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by newdad27Are you religious? Would God forgive you for ordering the torture of a human being?
to you "all day posting" people, if one does not disagree with every thought, action, idea, etc of this admin. you are a far right radical. I'm not, i voted for Gore and several dems b4 and since. I know, though, it is hard for most of U to look at anything political in an objective way. If i were pres i would want an exception in case a "specific to go around having prisoners tortured. I just choose not to think radically, rather logically.
Also where is the line? Would you stop at causing pain but no damage? Or damage but nothing permanent or do the red hot pokers go straight into the eye sockets?
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by newdad27Your argument regarding torture is defensible and worth consideration and debate. There is an interesting attitude protruding from your logician's robe: it's hard for certain other people to look at politics objectively - meaning you've got it down? You have the truth, and everyone else just has a point of view? Then why on earth would you have any interest in debating with us limited creatures?
... I know, though, it is hard for most of U to look at anything political in an objective way... I just choose not to think radically, rather logically.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by newdad27Uuugh. I give up.
to you "all day posting" people, if one does not disagree with every thought, action, idea, etc of this admin. you are a far right radical. I'm not, i voted for Gore and several dems b4 and since. I know, though, it is hard for most of U to look at anything political in an objective way. If i were pres i would want an exception in case a "specific ...[text shortened]... to go around having prisoners tortured. I just choose not to think radically, rather logically.
Your money's on the dresser honey, we're done.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by Algernonthe seemingly group think that exists among rhp posters is annoying. With some possible exceptions people like wig, sas, Ferris post basically the same thing on here everyday. If one should disagree with their view point then they are a right wing tool. Thus, I have to put myself above these ideologues to stay out of the mud.
Your argument regarding torture is defensible and worth consideration and debate. There is an interesting attitude protruding from your logician's robe: it's hard for certain other people to look at politics objectively - meaning you've got it down? You have the truth, and everyone else just has a point of view? Then why on earth would you have any interest in debating with us limited creatures?
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by newdad27Accusations of group-think go both ways. Their posts sound like group-think to you; and something about your posts may strike them the same way.
the seemingly group think that exists among rhp posters is annoying.
So what brings you or any of us here? Interested in a debate, a dialogue, some correspondence with people whose points of view are different than yours?
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by newdad27Thanks for acknowledging me (kind of) and ignoring my questions.
the seemingly group think that exists among rhp posters is annoying. With some possible exceptions people like wig, sas, Ferris post basically the same thing on here everyday. If one should disagree with their view point then they are a right wing tool. Thus, I have to put myself above these ideologues to stay out of the mud.