Obama dispises liberty

[McCulloch]

Obama's election could be punishment for an evil nation.

Or a reward to a nation coming to its senses.

Only if you despise liberty and support socialism.

Does Obama despise liberty and support socialism? Is he one of those Godless communists?

[East of Eden]

International law recognizes water boarding as torture also.

So what? US law trumps international law.

Not only that, but the U.S. prosecuted some Japanese in 1947 for water boarding as torture.

US military personnel subjected to that are covered by the Geneva Convention, Al-Queda is not. That is why when FDR caught out of uniform enemy combatants, he had them executed within one week.

[Board]

It's a legitimate question you're dodging. You said torture involved probing people for information, I said that's what cops to with criminals.

There is no dodge. Your line of questioning leads me to believe you somehow cannot comprehend the definition of torture.

Go back up the page and read the definition or torture again. Then ask a logical question regarding what is or is not torture.

Cops interrogate, they do not torture. There is a huge difference. Try and grasp the concepts please.

As far as John McCain, he was the victim of severe, long-term genuine torture, which is why I imagine he is so gun shy about enhanced interrogation. I would assume the CIA chief would have more information of the success of this than him.

Assume away. Your lack of understanding of what is or is not torture gives you no place to talk on this subject either.

[East of Eden]

There is no dodge. Your line of questioning leads me to believe you somehow cannot comprehend the definition of torture.

Go back up the page and read the definition or torture again. Then ask a logical question regarding what is or is not torture.

In many people's opinion, it is not torture.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Wate ... /id/322367

It is a moot point anyway, as these terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention. It hasn't been used since 2003, but was effective. I would hope if we had a terrorist who had knowledge that could stop another 9/11 or worse, we would use whatever means needed to prevent it.

Cops interrogate, they do not torture. There is a huge difference.

So why did you say torture involves probing people for information, as if that was relevant?

Assume away. Your lack of understanding of what is or is not torture gives you no place to talk on this subject either.

When I need your permission to give an opinion here I'll ask you.

[micatala]

Torture involves probing people for information...

Yes, cops do that with criminals all the time. Is that also torture?

Nonsense... water boarding gave us a name... nothing more and nothing less. The name of an alleged courier. Water boarding also provided:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/0 ... aden-.html

The CIA director disagrees with you:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns ... aden-raid/

I don't see that Panetta is agreeing with you, but again, you are not being very specific. On what points do you think Panetta disagrees with Board or McCain? On what specific point are you claiming Panetta agrees with you?

I see Panetta saying:

1) We have used waterboarding and other enhanced techniques.
2) We cannot say if the information provided by those who underwent these techniques would not have been provided had we not used the techniques. "Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question."
3) We had information from lots of sources, many of which did not involve the use of waterboarding, enhanced techniques, or torture (however that is defined).

[Board]

In many people's opinion, it is not torture.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Wate ... /id/322367

It is a moot point anyway, as these terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention. It hasn't been used since 2003, but was effective. I would hope if we had a terrorist who had knowledge that could stop another 9/11 or worse, we would use whatever means needed to prevent it.

It is indeed torture if you could grasp the concept of torture. Obviously you have chosen to ignore the use of the word torture in the English language.

Torture is never effective. Never. It produces more bad information than it does good information and our intelligence agencies are left with mountains of bad leads to sift through to find the potential one good lead. It is not effective and if you really need me to dig for all the psychological studies that prove this point I will...

So why did you say torture involves probing people for information, as if that was relevant?

Because your line of questioning was such that you were ignoring this vital point in the definition of torture. Torture involves physical or psychological pain inflicted on a person to extract information.

Your nonsensical questions about journalists, soldiers and cops do not apply as they do not meet all the criteria of the definition of torture. Seriously... go read the definition again and again until you grasp the concept please.

And another lovely point... Since when should we ignore the Geneva Convention? When it suits our needs to be cruel? Is torture moral?

That is why when FDR caught out of uniform enemy combatants, he had them executed within one week.

Captured enemies who happen to be out of uniform can be murdered? As a Christian how do you justify these courses of action? To me this wreaks of immorality, cruelty, and downright evil.

[East of Eden]

Torture is never effective. Never.

The CIA chief disagrees with you. Think I'll side with him.

And another lovely point... Since when should we ignore the Geneva Convention?

When it doesn't apply. The Geneva Convention applies to those who fulfill the following conditions:

1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

3. That of carrying arms openly;

4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Is torture moral?

It can be if it prevents a much greater evil, just like killing can.

Captured enemies who happen to be out of uniform can be murdered? As a Christian how do you justify these courses of action? To me this wreaks of immorality, cruelty, and downright evil.

I'm not a pacifist. A nation has a right to defend itself.

[Board]

When it doesn't apply.

So as long as the rules don't apply we can torture and murder people as well as hold them against their will for an indefinite amount of time with no need of a just cause or trial. Sounds immoral to me...

It can be if it prevents a much greater evil, just like killing can.

It cannot be shown that torture works in general or has worked in the case of Osama bin Laden. Torture under any circumstances is immoral. There is no greater evil than compromising your own morals.

Killing in self defense does not equate to the use of torture. Feel free to continue to attempt to blur the lines of morality to justify your position though...

I'm not a pacifist. A nation has a right to defend itself.

Of course we do... but do we have the right to use torture? Should we ignore common decency and what makes us human in order to get a whole lot of useless information from a human being. Or are enemy combatants not human? Do they have no rights?

Is there no such thing as inalienable human rights? Are we just playing when we say that in the constitution? Oh wait... I get it... the constitution does not apply to non-US citizens so we can ignore the part about inalienable human rights...

[Wyvern]

If you would just take a look at the history of these programs you list, you would realize that you are wrong. The Social Security Act was passed in the 1960's by a Progressive (aka: an individual who looks upon the initial American system with scorn). The income tax was permenantly implemented by a Progressive in the early 1900's. The creation of Central banking, along with the institution of Anti-Trust Laws came under a Progressive. Government regulatory agencies flourished under New Deal Policies, which were created by a Progressive. And, of course, Public Housing was implemented under the New Deal by FDR and his Socialist Labor Secretary Francis Perkins. So no, Socialism was never intended to be a part of the American System. Progressives forcibly injected these toxins into the American Bloodstream later on in our history and now Modern Day Progressives are claiming that they are part of our Heritage. Yea right.

If you would have bothered googling these programs you would have realized that you are wrong. The SSA was passed in 1935 by FDR not the '60's, granted FDR was a progressive so you got that part right although your definition of what a progressive is leaves a lot to be desired. The income tax was permanently implemented by a republican in 1913 and required amending the constitution, not the 1900's or a progressive as you claim. The first central bank was created in 1791 by Washington. How could he look upon the initial system with scorn when he was responsible for the creation of much of the initial system. The first antitrust law was created by a republican senator in 1890 under a republican president. If you consider all these institutions to be progressive then the modern day progressives are correct that such policies are part of our heritage right from the start of our nation. Even more impressive is that these programs you list republicans have been more responsible for than any other political party. Another thing to think about the two agencies that conservatives generally think are the most left leaning in all the federal government(EPA and OSHA) were both created by a republican president(Nixon) by executive order.

Hey dude, next time you attack your keyboard with the intent of trying to refute my facts, do some research. You've lost all your credibility as a factually-reliable poster with this rebuttal, which is riddled with errors from top to bottom.

Please point out any factual errors made on my part.

Aside from your factually incorrect statements, you operated under the assumption that the U.S political parties held the platform and positions they do in the twentifirst century back in the twentieth. Really? How can you reasonablly expect me to debate you when you've committed such a simple error that no student of American History that I've ever been in contact would ever committ. Go study the history and evolution of American Political Parties, go study the Policies born out of the Progressive Era, go study the legislative 'accomplishments' of the Wilson and Roosevelt Administrations, then come back and up a factually correct post next time.

Thank you for the ad hominem attack, now could you point out the factual errors in my response? The progressive movement started in the late nineteenth century so how is it a person from the previous century(Washington) was in your view a progressive? As I pointed out most of the issues you brought up either happened before the rise of progressivism or was very early in its history so how could progressives be responsible for everything you think is bad in this country? It seems to me that you have merely replaced liberal with progressive as the political boogeyman for the far right wing groups.

Yea, I probably won't defer the comprehension of the Philosophy of Conservatism to some liberal talking head on a failing 'news' network. Elements of the Republican Party, as demonstrated by their public voting records and political stances, do seem to embrace socialism. They are Republican In Name Only and have no right to the title of Conservative.

That's funny, you wont accept the definition of your particular political philosophy from a source that you consider to be against them but on the other hand you freely accept the definition of a political philosophy from a source that is opposed to it. Hypocrisy, it aint just for breakfast anymore.

I don't know and do not want to know what your breakfast activities are, Wyvern. All I know is that I don't wake up first thing in the morning and begin a critical analysis of the Daily Kos or search for Paul Krugman's brand new column in the NYT . You imply that I am a hypocrite because of the definitions I accept and don't accept when in reality you have no idea, or even a single clue, as to what I accept and don't accept. No, the real thing that's funny is your embarrasing assumption where you claim to know my sources and outlets of information.

The hypocrisy keeps on rolling, here you make the assumption of where my sources come from while at the same time saying I claim the same for you especiallly when I have done no such thing. I was simply commenting on you saying how you would not accept the definition of conservatism from someone from the left wing while at the same time accepting the definition of progressivism from an obviously right wing source. All ideas I have about what you accept and don't come entirely from what you write and in this case you stated it in no uncertain terms.

[micatala]

Torture is never effective. Never.

The CIA chief disagrees with you. Think I'll side with him.

You have not provided any evidence that this is the case. You have neglected to specify exactly what the point of agreement or disagreement is.

Try again.

And another lovely point... Since when should we ignore the Geneva Convention?

When it doesn't apply. The Geneva Convention applies to those who fulfill the following conditions:

1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

3. That of carrying arms openly;

4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

A fair point. I don't consider terrorists to be "soldiers." I agree with those who think the "war on terrorism" is mis-named. We should consider the terrorits heinous criminals and not dignify their atrocities with the word "war." War can sometimes be considered justified. What the terrorists do cannot be justified in anything like the way you could justify war, at least in my view.

Is torture moral?

It can be if it prevents a much greater evil, just like killing can.

This begs the question. Has torture ever actually been shown to prevent more evil than it causes?

Captured enemies who happen to be out of uniform can be murdered? As a Christian how do you justify these courses of action? To me this wreaks of immorality, cruelty, and downright evil.

I'm not a pacifist. A nation has a right to defend itself.

I would also not consider myself a pacifist, and agree, a nation has a right to defend itself.

However, I also believe that we should, as a nation, follow accepted international laws and codes of behavior. I think we should treat captured terrorists humanely and with due process. I reject the notion that defending the nation requires us to do otherwise, nor do I accept that acting in this way indicates any kind of weakness.


Clearly Obama was willing to take a large risk in defending the nation and bringing bin Laden to justice. The fact that he does not consider torture a legitimate or justified practice does not indicate in any way that he is somehow weak, or hates America, or is not willing to defend the country, or is un-American. Such accusations are entirely bogus and reflect a rejection of reality.

[WinePusher]

Hey dude, next time you attack your keyboard with the intent of trying to refute my facts, do some research. You've lost all your credibility as a factually-reliable poster with this rebuttal, which is riddled with errors from top to bottom.

Please point out any factual errors made on my part.

How sad, I'm going to have to assume you haven't done the research for yourself yet even in-light of being persuaded to do so.

Claim 1: The Social Security Act was passed in 1965 by Lyndon B. Johnson which thereby created Medicare and Medicade, programs mentioned in the post I initially responded to. Your claimw as that the Social Security Act was passed by FDR in 1935. This was merely a factual inaccuracy which can be faulted on your failure to fact check your own posts.

Claim 2: Woodrow Wilson, who implemented the income tax, was a Progressive Democrat, not a Republican as you claim. The income tax was implemented in 1913, also known as the early 1900's. This was the most doleful error out of all of them.

Claim 3: The Federal Reserve, the embodiment of modern American Central Banking, was created by Woodrow Wilson, a progressive democrat after his election. Prior to the institution of the Federal Reserve, there was no unified Central Banking Institution in America. The existence of Banks were finite and sporadic and their nature was inconsistent and capricious. Another wrong claim by Wyvern.

Claim 4: Antiturst laws were instituted by the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Act. The Clayton Antitrust act, passed under Woodrow Wilson (a progressive democrat, get it yet?) was simply a boost to the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Aside from your factually incorrect statements, you operated under the assumption that the U.S political parties held the platform and positions they do in the twentifirst century back in the twentieth. Really? How can you reasonablly expect me to debate you when you've committed such a simple error that no student of American History that I've ever been in contact would ever committ. Go study the history and evolution of American Political Parties, go study the Policies born out of the Progressive Era, go study the legislative 'accomplishments' of the Wilson and Roosevelt Administrations, then come back and up a factually correct post next time.

Thank you for the ad hominem attack, now could you point out the factual errors in my response?

The charge of hypocracy that you have put upon me is clearly an ad hominem attack, yet here you accuse me of engaging in ad hominem attacks. So, not only are your posts ad hominem (for calling me a hypocrite) but they are also hypocritical as you condemn me for engaging in an ad hominem attack when you yourself did so prior to my response. Man, that's good stuff .