Hello.

[Doktor Howl]

If Palin/Bachmann ran on the same ticket, you would _________.

...Vote for Harold Stassen, and then get very, very drunk, so as to bear the pain of watching The Smiler kick their asses on election night.

Bachmann has 4% of the vote among republicans.  That's just for the primary.

Sarah Palin now has 67%...republicans that won't vote for her.

[Doktor Howl]

Welcome!

Unless, that is, you start praising Ron Paul....

No danger of that.

Intolerance, btw, is prevalant on both extremes; that's why they're extreme. I think, if you give this place a try, you'll like it.

Obviously.  An extremist is merely someone who has stopped thinking.  That happens in every party and/or political philosophy.

[Doktor Howl]

Just did some digging, BTW...The BEST numbers shown for Palin and Bachmann are 15% and 11%, respectively, and that's entirely overlap.  IOW, together they poll about ~ 15% as a team.

By contrast, Romney is pulling down about 21%.  (Not endorsing Romney, here, just stating the numbers).

[Evil_Conservative]

What is your stance on abortion?

[Doktor Howl]

What is your stance on abortion?

Does it result in less assholes around me?  If so, I'm for it.  As I said in the OP, I'm not a people person.

[Doktor Howl]

Perhaps a better way to say this is:  These are the only things I find important, in no particular order:

1.  The national debt (and the deficit, of course).
2.  Taxation at the lowest rates that are both possible and responsible, given the other items on this list.
3.  Infrastructure.  It's hard to maintain an economy if your roads and bridges are falling apart.
4.  Continual modernization of the military.
5.  Ensuring that energy needs are met.
6.  Preservation of individual liberty above all else, including "national security" (TSA backscatter devices come to mind).
7.  Increase in American domestic industry.
8.  Suppression of stupid crap like "carbon tax", etc.
9.  Getting ourselves out of foreign wars that cost us trillions and gain us nothing.
10.  Finding new and interesting ways to get our enemies to fight each other.

[Evil_Conservative]

Does it result in less assholes around me?  If so, I'm for it.  As I said in the OP, I'm not a people person.

Tell us how you really feel.

[Doktor Howl]

Tell us how you really feel.

Okay.

90% of everyone I know should be punted back into their mother's womb and THEN aborted.

 

[Evil_Conservative]

Okay.

90% of everyone I know should be punted back into their mother's womb and THEN aborted.

 

Including you?

[Eupher]

Okay.

90% of everyone I know should be punted back into their mother's womb and THEN aborted.

 

Why is it you advocate that? What is it about people that piss you off on such a massive scale? Do you think your antipathy toward people stems from YOU, or is it something inherent in people in general?

In other words, why the arrogance? Do you offer society something more valuable than, say a truck driver? Housewife and mother? CEO of Godfather's Pizza, Corp.?

Just curious.

[Rebel]

Waterboarding and up, IMO.  The guideline we are held to by treaty (and thus by article VI of the constitution) is the Geneva Convention's definition, as listed under article 147.

When the Hajis start abiding by the Geneva Conventions, we'll follow suit. Cool?

[Doktor Howl]

Including you?

No.  I am a special snowflake.

[Doktor Howl]

When the Hajis start abiding by the Geneva Conventions, we'll follow suit. Cool?

Sure, if using the moral standards of criminals and barbarians as your baseline is okay, I guess.

[Doktor Howl]

Why is it you advocate that? What is it about people that piss you off on such a massive scale? Do you think your antipathy toward people stems from YOU, or is it something inherent in people in general?

Oh, I think it's probably me.  I am basically just a very unpleasant person that is offended by the stupidity of others (my own stupidity I'm okay with).  I'm comfortable with that, as humanity continues to live up to my very low expectations of it.

In other words, why the arrogance? Do you offer society something more valuable than, say a truck driver? Housewife and mother? CEO of Godfather's Pizza, Corp.?

Just curious.

Nope.  I'm just an industrial maintenance geek who made good.  One of tens of thousands.

[Evil_Conservative]

No.  I am a special snowflake.

Uh huh.  It's a pleasure to meet you.  Good luck.

[Doktor Howl]

Uh huh.  It's a pleasure to meet you.  Good luck.

Nice to meet you, too.

I won't be invoicing you for the sarcasm.

[Rebel]

Sure, if using the moral standards of criminals and barbarians as your baseline is okay, I guess.

Fighting with one arm tied behind one's back against an opponent who's using every weapon to his avail has never won a war. We didn't beat the Japanese by playing nice either.

[Rebel]

BTW, we signed those damn conventions so that there was some mutual understanding that our POWs wouldn't be harmed while being held. Since there IS no mutual understanding between us and the Hajis, who would just as soon blow up a day care, those conventions don't mean dick.

We did NOT sign them out of the kindness of our hearts, but out of concern for our own POWs. Since decent treatment by our enemy waved bye bye long ago was never even PRESENT, to hell with those conventions.

[Doktor Howl]

Fighting with one arm tied behind one's back against an opponent who's using every weapon to his avail has never won a war. We didn't beat the Japanese by playing nice either.

No, we beat the Japanese by outproducing them, crippling their navy, starving and blowing up their occupation forces, and then - just for good measure - dropping a couple of nukes on them (lesson:  don't wage total war and lose).

Oddly enough, none of those were GC violations, and thus were not a violation of a ratified treaty, therefore not a constitutional violation.

There are perfectly sound methods of interrogation that work, that don't involve turning ourselves into barbarians.

[Doktor Howl]

BTW, we signed those damn conventions so that there was some mutual understanding that our POWs wouldn't be harmed while being held. Since there IS no mutual understanding between us and the Hajis, who would just as soon blow up a day care, those conventions don't mean dick.

The GC requires signatory nations to adhere to it, regardless of whom they are fighting.  And since it's a ratified treaty, article VI of the constitution requires that we comply.

[Rebel]

No, we beat the Japanese by outproducing them, crippling their navy, starving and blowing up their occupation forces, and then - just for good measure - dropping a couple of nukes on them (lesson:  don't wage total war and lose).

Oddly enough, none of those were GC violations, and thus were not a violation of a ratified treaty, therefore not a constitutional violation.

There are perfectly sound methods of interrogation that work, that don't involve turning ourselves into barbarians.

Care to point out where I said they violated a convention that had yet to be written? I said we didn't play nice with an enemy that wasn't playing nice. That's the entire point.

[Rebel]

The GC requires signatory nations to adhere to it, regardless of whom they are fighting.  And since it's a ratified treaty, article VI of the constitution requires that we comply.

Hmm, Ok, show me where the Muslim radicals signed. I'll wait.

I also posted this:

We did NOT sign them out of the kindness of our hearts, but out of concern for our own POWs. Since decent treatment by our enemy waved bye bye long ago was never even PRESENT, to hell with those conventions.

[Doktor Howl]

Care to point out where I said they violated a convention that had yet to be written? I said we didn't play nice with an enemy that wasn't playing nice. That's the entire point.

The GC has been in effect in one form or another since 1882.  We are currently on the 4th convention.

And nobody says you have to play nice.  What the GC DOES say is that torture is out of bounds.  And with better methods of getting Habib to spill his guts, why bother giving the government the power to do this sort of thing?

I mean, think it all the way through.  Once you make it okay for a good reason, someone will find a way to make it okay for a bad reason.

You don't think Napalitano would hesitate for a second to use this sort of shit on Americans, if she could dress it up as "national security"?

[Doktor Howl]

Hmm, Ok, show me where the Muslim radicals signed. I'll wait.

I also posted this:

We did NOT sign them out of the kindness of our hearts, but out of concern for our own POWs. Since decent treatment by our enemy waved bye bye long ago was never even PRESENT, to hell with those conventions.

And as I said, the GC requires all signatories to adhere to it no matter whom they are fighting.

Either you have a constitution, or you don't.  If you do, article VI demands compliance.  If you don't then this subject is the very least of your worries.

[Rebel]

The GC has been in effect in one form or another since 1882.  We are currently on the 4th convention.

And nobody says you have to play nice.  What the GC DOES say is that torture is out of bounds.  And with better methods of getting Habib to spill his guts, why bother giving the government the power to do this sort of thing?

I mean, think it all the way through.  Once you make it okay for a good reason, someone will find a way to make it okay for a bad reason.

You don't think Napalitano would hesitate for a second to use this sort of shit on Americans, if she could dress it up as "national security"?

I have thought about it through and through and I have absolutely no problem with it. As for using it on American citizens, it violates the US Constitution. Last I checked, we're not waterboarding US citizens but Hajis caught on the battlefield. If they are American citizens, they've essentially renounced their citizenship by proxy.

You think torture is waterboarding and, I guess, that would include PsyOps. I don't. I believe torture is shoving bamboo shoots up fingernails, ripping out fingernails, breaking femurs, shoving glass tubes up dicks and then breaking them, etc.