The Conservative Cave
The Bar => Introductions & Subsequent Welcomes => Topic started by: Doktor Howl on June 06, 2011, 09:24:14 PM
-
I'm never sure to say in these things.
I'm a veteran (US Army, infantry, 10 years...Gimpy knee cut my career short back in 95/96), and am currently the maintenance chief at a chemical refinery owned by Big Oil.
I am a complete misanthrope. I prefer to discuss politics, etc, online...Because I can't stand people enough to be around them in person for more than a few minutes. If I had my way, there'd be a lot less people stinking up my planet.
Politically, I'm not sure what I am, but I'm certainly not a democrat or a republican, or any of the various spin-off parties.
I can't be a liberal, because I like guns, money, and the modicum of power I have secured for myself.
I can't be a conservative, because I like freedom of religion (ANY religion), industrial regulation (but not for the normal reason), and I can't abide the idea of America using torture, directly or by proxy.
That's about it, I suppose.
-
Welcome? I think? :cheersmate:
-
Welcome? I think? :cheersmate:
Thanks.
-
Welcome. How did you find CC?
-
Welcome to CC.
-
Welcome. How did you find CC?
When the political board I was used to took a crap, I hit google. I have no use for DU or freerepublic, and this was the next hit I got on my search terms.
-
Welcome to CC.
Thank you.
-
Thank you.
Oh no. Thank you.
-
What makes you think that being a conservative automatically means one is intolerant to religions other than one's own (assuming that's what you meant)?
And what do you mean by "torture?" Waterboarding? Talking tough? Slapping around a bit? Or digging a tool under fingernails perhaps?
Do tell.
-
What makes you think that being a conservative automatically means one is intolerant to religions other than one's own (assuming that's what you meant)?
I don't think it's automatic. I do think that it's prevalent and mainstream among modern conservatives, though. For example:
On Thursday, shortly before he interviewed Rep. Michele Bachmann on his radio program, Fischer shared another opinion: That because of their faith Muslim Americans have “no fundamental First Amendment claims.†Bachmann, who speaks at an AFA event in Iowa today, is not the first potential 2012 candidate from Minnesota to join Fischer; Tim Pawlenty met with him in January.
Fischer is an extremist, in my opinion, but he does hang out with some big names in conservativism, who feel no apparent need to distance themselves from comments like that.
And what do you mean by "torture?" Waterboarding? Talking tough? Slapping around a bit? Or digging a tool under fingernails perhaps?
Do tell.
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.
[p.598] ' Torture. ' -- The word torture has different acceptations. It is used sometimes even in the sense of purely moral suffering, but in view of the other expressions which follow (i.e. inhuman treatment including biological experiments and suffering, etc.) it seems that it must be given here its, so to speak, legal meaning -- i.e., the infliction of suffering on a person to obtain from that person, or from another person, confessions or information.
-
:popcorn:
How about that Sarah Palin?
-
:popcorn:
How about that Sarah Palin?
Not too wild about her, to be honest. She's a liability, IMO.
-
Not too wild about her, to be honest. She's a liability, IMO.
What is your take on the tea party movement?
-
Not too wild about her, to be honest. She's a liability, IMO.
A liability for whom? Libs in general?
Oh, please don't tell me -- her touring bus ran over a squirrel. That's it, right? That's her liability. I can see it now, as trumpeted by the Daily Kos:
"Sarah Palin's Tour Bus Runs Over Defenseless Squirrel"
Then a long diatribe as how clueless Palin is because she didn't know the difference between a red squirrel and a gray squirrel. :whatever:
-
So are you saying, Dok, that ANY attempt to elicit information from an enemy is illegal, immoral, and fattening, as long as such attempts fit the rather broad-brush definition you apparently quoted from the Geneva Convention?
Does that mean we can't take a jihadist, strip him naked, have him drink a half gallon of water (slowly, as not to upset his electrolyte levels), then have him piss against the wind?
-
What is your take on the tea party movement?
Which one?
One of the strengths of the tea party movement is that they aren't centralized. Here in Arizona, they made a pretty good showing - at least up North - and will be viable in 2012.
Overall, though, they're pretty much a detriment, as they actively marginalize anyone who isn't hard right. The GOP can't survive as a "small tent" party, and the tea party itself seems to have been a flash in the pan, as demonstrated by their lousy turnout numbers over the last year or so.
The question, on a national level, is "Do you want the GOP to be inclusive or exclusive"? Do you drive out everyone who disagrees on even a single plank of the conservative platform, or do you accept that very few people (less than 20% of Americans) accept every position that the party takes?
Because if you are more interested in driving out "RINOs" than in winning elections, then the tea party is probably for you in 2012. If, however, you're willing to focus on a core set of beliefs, and accept dissent in the ranks on things of lesser importance, then you probably should steer clear of the tea party.
Personally, I'm a "big tent" thinker. I'd rather have the dissenters inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in.
-
A liability for whom? Libs in general?
Oh, please don't tell me -- her touring bus ran over a squirrel. That's it, right? That's her liability. I can see it now, as trumpeted by the Daily Kos:
"Sarah Palin's Tour Bus Runs Over Defenseless Squirrel"
Then a long diatribe as how clueless Palin is because she didn't know the difference between a red squirrel and a gray squirrel. :whatever:
No, she's a liability to the republican party.
But if you'd rather just put words in my mouth, go ahead. Doesn't cost me a dime.
-
So are you saying, Dok, that ANY attempt to elicit information from an enemy is illegal, immoral, and fattening, as long as such attempts fit the rather broad-brush definition you apparently quoted from the Geneva Convention?
Does that mean we can't take a jihadist, strip him naked, have him drink a half gallon of water (slowly, as not to upset his electrolyte levels), then have him piss against the wind?
Why not just "schedule shifting"? It's legal, harmless, and - more to the point - it works. The Germans and Russians had that shit figured out in the 40s, and they got far better information than the Japanese did, who used waterboarding and far worse techniques.
-
Welcome...
-
Personally, I'm a "big tent" thinker. I'd rather have the dissenters inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in.
At what point, in your opinion, do the dissenters dilute the message?
Do you drive out everyone who disagrees on even a single plank of the conservative platform, or do you accept that very few people (less than 20% of Americans) accept every position that the party takes
What are the positions the tea party movement takes?
the tea party itself seems to have been a flash in the pan, as demonstrated by their lousy turnout numbers over the last year or so
700+ seats nationwide flipped in 2010.
-
If Palin/Bachmann ran on the same ticket, you would _________.
-
Welcome. Hope you enjoy it here. It's a fun place and lot's of smart people...and we have a vesta :hyper:
-
At what point, in your opinion, do the dissenters dilute the message?
When they drag the party away from what the party considers its core planks.
What do you consider "core"? Because getting people to agree on that is the hard part.
What are the positions the tea party movement takes?
I was speaking of their need to drive out the "RINOs".
700+ seats nationwide flipped in 2010.
And how's that working out for you? The deficit has been reduced? Spending has been significantly cut (1% ain't gonna make the nut)? Has anything been accomplished?
Tea party rallies are dismal affairs, these days...And who can blame them? They were promised action, and they got the same old song and dance.
-
Welcome. Hope you enjoy it here. It's a fun place and lot's of smart people...and we have a vesta :hyper:
Gina! Don't ruin the surprise! :whistling:
-
Welcome!
Unless, that is, you start praising Ron Paul....
:-)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
What is your stance on abortion?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Tell us how you really feel.
Okay.
90% of everyone I know should be punted back into their mother's womb and THEN aborted.
:naughty:
-
Okay.
90% of everyone I know should be punted back into their mother's womb and THEN aborted.
:naughty:
Including you?
-
Okay.
90% of everyone I know should be punted back into their mother's womb and THEN aborted.
:naughty:
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.
-
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?
-
Including you?
No. I am a special snowflake.
-
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.
-
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.
-
No. I am a special snowflake.
Uh huh. It's a pleasure to meet you. Good luck.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
What subject? The Hello thread?
I've seen some threads drift and get hijacked, but this is ridiculous. Post a topic somewhere.
-
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.
Then let the UN send their ***** army to enforce them.
-
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.
1. Amendment VIII is not restricted to American citizens, as amendment II (for one example) is. It covers anyone in American jurisdiction or custody.
2. Torture is very clearly defined in the GC. And, as I said, there are ways to make them sing like canaries that don't involve torture. Interesting note: We convicted one Japanese officer for waterboarding Americans, as a war crime.
-
Then let the UN send their ***** army to enforce them.
Why would the UN enforce article VI of our constitution?
-
What subject? The Hello thread?
I've seen some threads drift and get hijacked, but this is ridiculous. Post a topic somewhere.
People asked questions, I'm just rolling with it.
-
2. Torture is very clearly defined in the GC. And, as I said, there are ways to make them sing like canaries that don't involve torture. Interesting note: We convicted one Japanese officer for waterboarding Americans, as a war crime.
Really? Where does it say waterboarding?
-
Why would the UN enforce article VI of our constitution?
There a lot of additional shit that needs to be removed from the Constitution and that's one treaty we should end. Is it doing us any good? How has the treatment of our POW's been? Oh, wait, do we still have some American POW's alive? ...oh, that's right... ::)
-
Really? Where does it say waterboarding?
Article 127.
Grave breachesNot all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:
willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial
As you see, it is suffering OR injury.
Now, if you have a way to get accurate information out of people, why would you bother violating a ratified treaty for information that is at best suspect?
-
There a lot of additional shit that needs to be removed from the Constitution
You know, that's really all I needed to hear.
-
Article 127.
Grave breachesNot all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:
willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial
As you see, it is suffering OR injury.
Now, if you have a way to get accurate information out of people, why would you bother violating a ratified treaty for information that is at best suspect?
How are they injured? As for suffering, are you f'n serious? I went through more hell in PLDC at Ft. f'n Benning than they do in their little time gurgling water. Besides, if they don't like it, they can always start f'n talking.
-
How are they injured? As for suffering, are you f'n serious? I went through more hell in PLDC at Ft. f'n Benning than they do in their little time gurgling water. Besides, if they don't like it, they can always start f'n talking.
Odd. I attended PLDC and wasn't waterboarded.
-
You know, that's really all I needed to hear.
So, you think EVERYTHING politicians have done to this nation was for the good of the nation? You bitch about taxation, yet you seem to think there's nothing wrong with the Constitution. Also, what kind of f'n good has the 17th Amendment done, other than make senators nothing more than glorified representatives of the people, when they were not SUPPOSED to represent the people, but the states?
Perhaps you're not intelligent enough to continue the conversation.
-
Odd. I attended PLDC and wasn't waterboarded.
Yeah, one more thing I didn't say. You might want to start reading what's in front of you.
-
So, you think EVERYTHING politicians have done to this nation was for the good of the nation? You bitch about taxation, yet you seem to think there's nothing wrong with the Constitution. Also, what kind of f'n good has the 17th Amendment done, other than make senators nothing more than glorified representatives of the people, when they were not SUPPOSED to represent the people, but the states?
Perhaps you're not intelligent enough to continue the conversation.
*shrug*
Either you're a constitutionalist, or you're not.
-
*shrug*
Either you're a constitutionalist, or you're not.
I'm a strict constitutionalist, as it was written. Not so much all the other bullshit that agenda-driven politicians have burdened us with in a few amendments, the U.S. Code, etc. An amendment that is so damn ambiguous that it allows policies that are in direct contradiction to the Constitution and Bill of Rights should have NEVER been entered.
-
I'm a strict constitutionalist, as it was written. Not so much all the other bullshit that agenda-driven politicians have burdened us with in a few amendments, the U.S. Code, etc.
So you're a strict constitutionalist except for articles V and VI?
-
Article 127.
Grave breachesNot all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:
willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial
As you see, it is suffering OR injury.
Now, if you have a way to get accurate information out of people, why would you bother violating a ratified treaty for information that is at best suspect?
Well, Dok, you've clearly done your homework on the GC. Congratulations.
You've alluded to "other" methods of extracting information out of combatants without "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury". Care to go into some detail about that?
As for the U.S. Constitution and the GC and the trumpeting you're doing about adhering to the document, I'd be willing to bet, oh, say my brand new euph that not every "t" is crossed and every "i" is dotted when it comes to those pesky conventions.
After all, our Congress features a number of liars (Weiner, anyone?) and even our current president has lied through his teeth.
Strapping on the great moral compass and riding into the sunset doesn't necessarily win friends and endear ourselves to the bad guys.
Besides, who says waterboarding "causes great suffering or serious injury"? Besides yourself, of course.
It looks to me like hadji's getting a sorely-needed bath.
Just sayin'.....
-
So you're a strict constitutionalist except for articles V and VI?
I didn't say I didn't support V and VI, I said I didn't support Geneva Conventions when it pertained to non-signatories and I inferred that we should have never entered into a treaty with those stipulations.
-
Nice to meet you, too.
I won't be invoicing you for the sarcasm.
That's a shame.
-
You've alluded to "other" methods of extracting information out of combatants without "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury". Care to go into some detail about that?
Sure. One method is to put them in a room with no windows. You give them enough food, but at random intervals. You give them enough sleep, but also at random times. Within a few days, the part of the brain that marks time basically stops functioning, as they have no frame of reference...It's a form of sensory deprivation that causes no discomfort or injury, and impairs their judgement, and they sing like canaries. The Germans and the Russians used this to great effect, starting in the early 40s. Thing is, as soon as they gain a point of reference (a clock, a window through which they can see the sun, etc), they revert to normal.
Also, the regular old Reid Technique used by police usually works, especially when conducted for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Also, you try them as unlawful combatants, and you have a firing squad to use as leverage (The GC and American law allow for executing illegal combatants). It's amazing how many wannabe holy warriors have a change of heart when they actually have to look at the blindfold. This, also, is perfectly legal.
And if they don't sing? Find a suitable backstop, a blindfold, and a cigarette, and let the other illegal combatants watch the show. Someone will talk.
Strapping on the great moral compass and riding into the sunset doesn't necessarily win friends and endear ourselves to the bad guys.
I don't give a shit what the bad guys think. I am concerned with the ethics of America, and nobody else.
-
I didn't say I didn't support V and VI, I said I didn't support Geneva Conventions when it pertained to non-signatories and I inferred that we should have never entered into a treaty with those stipulations.
Well, the GC has clear provisions for fighting irregular forces such as the Taliban or Al Qaida, and we ratified it. That means we have to follow it, or chuck article VI of the constitution.
And if you don't want amendments, you kind of have to eliminate article V.
-
Sure. One method is to put them in a room with no windows. You give them enough food, but at random intervals. You give them enough sleep, but also at random times. Within a few days, the part of the brain that marks time basically stops functioning, as they have no frame of reference...It's a form of sensory deprivation that causes no discomfort or injury, and impairs their judgement, and they sing like canaries. The Germans and the Russians used this to great effect, starting in the early 40s. Thing is, as soon as they gain a point of reference (a clock, a window through which they can see the sun, etc), they revert to normal.
Also, the regular old Reid Technique used by police usually works, especially when conducted for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Also, you try them as unlawful combatants, and you have a firing squad to use as leverage (The GC and American law allow for executing illegal combatants). It's amazing how many wannabe holy warriors have a change of heart when they actually have to look at the blindfold. This, also, is perfectly legal.
And if they don't sing? Find a suitable backstop, a blindfold, and a cigarette, and let the other illegal combatants watch the show. Someone will talk.
I don't give a shit what the bad guys think. I am concerned with the ethics of America, and nobody else.
Who's to say that what you're espousing - this sensory deprivation - doesn't cause great suffering? Who defines this type of treatment and calls it legit? Is that laid out in the GC?
Who's to say that waterboarding isn't just another way to get a bath?
Personally I don't give a flying **** how they get the information. Just as long as they get it. If they can get the information by having 72 virgins give the guy 72 blowjobs, I'm okay with that -- as long as we can take the filthy bastard out back and blow the back of his head off.
-
Who's to say that what you're espousing - this sensory deprivation - doesn't cause great suffering? Who defines this type of treatment and calls it legit? Is that laid out in the GC?
It certainly is. There is no physiological cause of pain, and no reported discomfort of any kind. This has been studied to death by psychologists all over the world. It doesn't even carry the hallucinations caused by full sensory deprivation. It just makes you kinda dumb and willing to talk.
And it works like clockwork.
So why bother setting precedent for torture, no matter how you dress it up?
-
Well, the GC has clear provisions for fighting irregular forces such as the Taliban or Al Qaida, and we ratified it. That means we have to follow it, or chuck article VI of the constitution.
And if you don't want amendments, you kind of have to eliminate article V.
Damn you aren't very apprehensive. Now, please show me where I said I didn't want amendments.
-
Damn you aren't very apprehensive.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Now, please show me where I said I didn't want amendments.
Okay.
I'm a strict constitutionalist, as it was written. Not so much all the other bullshit that agenda-driven politicians have burdened us with in a few amendments, the U.S. Code, etc.
-
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Okay.
You're right:
capable of understanding or quick to do so
I'm sure it means something else. :whatever:
BTW, "a few amendments" =/= ALL amendments.
-
BTW, the "apprehensive" statement was pertaining to you misreading 3 posts of mine thus far.
-
BTW, "a few amendments" =/= ALL amendments.
So, you can cherry pick the constitution? By that standard, even Obama is a strict constitutionalist.
-
So, you can cherry pick the constitution? By that standard, even Obama is a strict constitutionalist.
Not to get mixed up in your conversation with Reb, but how about some "plausible ignorability?" You know, that thing that all presidents practice at one time or another.
Barry's a little more obvious than most, though.
-
Not to get mixed up in your conversation with Reb, but how about some "plausible ignorability?" You know, that thing that all presidents practice at one time or another.
Barry's a little more obvious than most, though.
Sure. And who elected him? The American people.
And who puts up with him? The America people.
Same people who put up with a little more "plausible ignorability" with each successive administration, until we basically have a low-rent emperor. And the American people will CONTINUE to put up with it, as long as the television works.
This ain't your great-great-great grandaddy's America.
-
Sure. And who elected him? The American people.
And who puts up with him? The America people.
Same people who put up with a little more "plausible ignorability" with each successive administration, until we basically have a low-rent emperor. And the American people will CONTINUE to put up with it, as long as the television works.
This ain't your great-great-great grandaddy's America.
Not for long, Dok. His days are numbered before he goes tottering off to whatever golf course in Chicago he wants to putz with.
-
Not for long, Dok. His days are numbered before he goes tottering off to whatever golf course in Chicago he wants to putz with.
I'm not feeling very optimistic. The GOP can't seem to get their shit in one bag, candidate-wise. Remember that the dems thought 2004 was a shoo-in.
No, I'm thinking The Smiler will go right on smiling until 2016. And even if he doesn't, it's not like the next guy is suddenly going to forego all the extra juice the president's office has been accumulating since 1860.
-
I'm not feeling very optimistic. The GOP can't seem to get their shit in one bag, candidate-wise. Remember that the dems thought 2004 was a shoo-in.
No, I'm thinking The Smiler will go right on smiling until 2016. And even if he doesn't, it's not like the next guy is suddenly going to forego all the extra juice the president's office has been accumulating since 1860.
It's still early and Romney hasn't folded his cards yet.
-
It's still early and Romney hasn't folded his cards yet.
Romney is about the best chance the GOP has - at least among the current hopefuls - but he's doomed. Most republicans won't vote for him because of the healthcare thing, some won't vote for him because he's a Mormon, and it's not like the left is going to vote for him.
The GOP had better squat and crap out a decent candidate soon. The freaks that have announced so far have imploded one by one. There's got to be another Reagan out there somewhere.
-
So, you can cherry pick the constitution? By that standard, even Obama is a strict constitutionalist.
I didn't say anything about cherry-picking the Constitution. I offered my opinion on a few amendments passed AFTER the Constitution was written, amendments that I feel contradicts the US Constitution. You telling me the 17th doesn't contradict the Constitution and the founders' intent that we NOT have a strong central government, that all people be represented as well as all states? That the 16th doesn't as it allowed the creation of a progressive tax that punishes people for being successful?
-
Romney is about the best chance the GOP has - at least among the current hopefuls - but he's doomed. Most republicans won't vote for him because of the healthcare thing, some won't vote for him because he's a Mormon, and it's not like the left is going to vote for him.
The GOP had better squat and crap out a decent candidate soon. The freaks that have announced so far have imploded one by one. There's got to be another Reagan out there somewhere.
Yeah, and I'm sure your pessimistic attitude will work wonders for the GOP. :whatever:
Cain hasn't failed at a damn thing.
-
I didn't say anything about cherry-picking the Constitution. I offered my opinion on a few amendments passed AFTER the Constitution was written, amendments that I feel contradicts the US Constitution. You telling me the 17th doesn't contradict the Constitution and the founders' intent that we NOT have a strong central government, that all people be represented as well as all states? That the 16th doesn't as it allowed the creation of a progressive tax that punishes people for being successful?
According to article V, amendments are part & parcel of the constitution, and directly change it. If an amendment contradicts the original text, the amendment wins.
-
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.
Another case of chronic DUmbass..... the Geneva Convention rules do not apply to today's enemies. They fight for no specific country. They don't wear a uniform. They may have declared war on the US and her allies, but it's a jihad or religious war. It's not as if Iran, itself, has declared war on the US, but sending in cowards to fight a coward's war. Furthermore, they are not signatories of the Geneva Convention. Of course, I'm sure that the Germans & Japanese abided by the Geneva convention, too, didn't they?? (NOT!!) Damn, dude, did you pay ANY attention in World History class??
-
Yeah, and I'm sure your pessimistic attitude will work wonders for the GOP. :whatever:
Cain hasn't failed at a damn thing.
Except the "electable" part.
-
Another case of chronic DUmbass..... the Geneva Convention rules do not apply to today's enemies. They fight for no specific country. They don't wear a uniform. They may have declared war on the US and her allies, but it's a jihad or religious war. It's not as if Iran, itself, has declared war on the US, but sending in cowards to fight a coward's war. Furthermore, they are not signatories of the Geneva Convention. Of course, I'm sure that the Germans & Japanese abided by the Geneva convention, too, didn't they?? (NOT!!) Damn, dude, did you pay ANY attention in World History class??
Pretty sure we covered the non-signatory part.
And are you calling me a DUer?
-
Except the "electable" part.
Racist.
-
Racist.
Who mentioned race? You sure you're not a democrat?
-
Who mentioned race? You sure you're not a democrat?
:rotf:
-
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 07, 2011, 05:55:41 pm
Romney is about the best chance the GOP has - at least among the current hopefuls - but he's doomed. Most republicans won't vote for him because of the healthcare thing, some won't vote for him because he's a Mormon, and it's not like the left is going to vote for him.
The GOP had better squat and crap out a decent candidate soon. The freaks that have announced so far have imploded one by one. There's got to be another Reagan out there somewhere.
Welcome!
And it's about the Supreme Court people, if Romney gets the nomination run don't walk to vote for him.
-
Except the "electable" part.
I keep hearing this comment about Republicans running. They tend to come from people on the left when talking about Republican candidates.
Tell me Einstein, what makes Herman Cain unelectable?
...waiting...
-
I keep hearing this comment about Republicans running. They tend to come from people on the left when talking about Republican candidates.
Tell me Einstein, what makes Herman Cain unelectable?
...waiting...
Other than polling below Ron Paul?
(http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/7vw4_oftj0ghk98ti6sq6q.gif)
:lol:
And as for your continuing allegations that I am a leftist, well, I think we're done here. Nice talking to you.
-
According to your little poll, NO one is electable on that list, if that's where you're getting at. The top is Romney with 17%, and Herman only 9 points back. That isn't much of a gap to close with Romney and the rest making gaffe after gaffe.
BTW, it is 2011.
-
This has gone waaaaaaaaaaaay beyond a hello thread.
I wonder where Reagan polled in 1978.
-
The OP is a left-wing troll, just so you know. You're wasting your time replying to "The Good Reverend Roger", "Little Billy", whatever name he's using now.
-
The OP is a left-wing troll, just so you know. You're wasting your time replying to "The Good Reverend Roger", "Little Billy", whatever name he's using now.
I think that was established a couple pages ago, but playing with trolls is fun sometimes.
-
I think that was established a couple pages ago, but playing with trolls is fun sometimes.
It was established after the very first post.
-
It was established after the very first post.
:-)
-
The OP is a left-wing troll, just so you know. You're wasting your time replying to "The Good Reverend Roger", "Little Billy", whatever name he's using now.
Hey, I remember you. Weren't you banned from MW after throwing a fit and posting gay porn all over the place?
-
Hey, I remember you. Weren't you banned from MW after throwing a fit and posting gay porn all over the place?
I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume that the above comment is sarcasm.......just this once....
doc
-
I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume that the above comment is sarcasm.......just this once....
doc
Actually, it was a question. And, as a question, far less odious than the constant accusations and insults I've put up with so far.